Don't Forget....

Don't forget to submit a question for the July 14 Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall debate sponsored by 9News.

Greeley Parade Officials Boost Mark Udall, Leave Out Own Board Rep Bob Schaffer

Northern Colorado 1310 AM KFKA radio talk show host Amy Oliver notes an odd fact about this year's Greeley Stampede Independence Day parade:

Also, how did Congressman and Boulder liberal Mark Udall (D-2nd CD) get his own entry in the parade? Udall doesn’t even represent this area. The Democrat candidate for US Senate had an entry very early in the parade which guaranteed him TV time along with a seven paragraph puff piece that was read by 9 News as it broadcast the parade. The script on Udall read like a campaign ad except it didn’t say “vote for Mark Udall.”

And where was Republican candidate for US Senate Bob Schaffer? According to two sources, the 4th Congressional District Representative to the State Board of Education and Vice Chair of the Board was not on the Stampede Parade Committee’s “select group of elected candidates” invited to have their own entry in the parade. Even after Schaffer asked to have his own entry, the Stampede said no. The committee did indicate it would talk with Schaffer after the parade (and after all Udall’s free publicity). So the elected official that represents this area did not get his own parade entry while the elected official who doesn’t represent this area did. Hmmm…. [emphases added]

That something like this could happen borders on the silly and laughable: It makes me wonder if the actions of parade officials are based in a recognition that Boulder liberal Mark Udall needs all the extra free help he can get, while attendees somehow would be tainted by seeing conservative Bob Schaffer. Officials ought to give a public explanation for the obvious lack of evenhanded treatment.

Does Mark Udall Really Not Remember When the 9/11 Attacks Occurred?

Update: Thanks to the commenter's prompt catch, I have posted a correction here.

Over at The Colorado Index, a watcher calls Boulder liberal Mark Udall on a glaring misstatement - a statement in which he claimed to move away from his wacky co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace because he "changed after 9/11".

A watcher astutely and accurately notes:

Mark Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace bill didn't take place until after 9/11. He only dropped out as a sponsor after he decided to run for the US Senate.

The quote implies that he became more realistic after 9/11. The opposite is true. Mark Udall lies again. The amazing thing is that Ed Sealover didn't catch the lie, or at least didn't note it.

Mark Udall isn't moving to the middle. His campaign is using the classic propaganda tool. Tell a big lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.

Either Mark Udall's memory and other mental faculties are too Swiss-cheesed for him to competently serve as U.S. Senator, or he indeed has been caught in an outright lie.

Does Mark Udall really not remember when our nation was invaded by terrorists? Will we get a retraction and explanation from the Udall campaign?

Mark Udall Winning on Internet Ads, But Obstructing Energy Solutions for Colorado

Long weekend, slow political news cycle. Lynn Bartels at the Rocky Mountain News writes about how Democrat Mark Udall's campaign is absolutely cleaning up on the Internet advertising front:

Udall's campaign has turned to the Internet for an advertising blitz that puts the candidate's face on more than 250 Web sites. Browsers who click on Udall's ads are sent to his campaign Web site, which recently received rave reviews from a blog that grades such sites.

"We hear people say they see Mark's ad in lots of places," said Taylor West, Udall's campaign spokesperson.

Heck, I'm surprised Mark Udall hasn't bought ad space on this site. (It's a joke. Ha.)

And Taylor West was replaced as official campaign spokesperson weeks ago. How long has this story been in the can?

Mike Saccone at the Grand Junction Sentinel also reports that Mark Udall is winning the not-yet-meaningful Facebook rivalry.

Meanwhile, the issue of rising gasoline prices raises the profile on oil shale extraction in Colorado. But Mark Udall stands in the way of energy relief. Smaller newspapers get the importance of the issue (H/T Coyote Gulch). The technology is there to do this far more cleanly than in the past.

Hopefully the discussion of campaign Internet advertising will give way soon to substantive campaign issues, like Mark Udall's obstruction of sensible energy solutions that would benefit consumers.

Thanking Mark Udall for the Gas Price Pain that Keeps Many Home This Fourth of July

An important holiday weekend is almost upon us, so you won't see much more posting here between now and next Monday. But here's something unpleasant to think about, especially for those Coloradans planning to travel in celebration of the long Independence Day weekend:

Record high gas prices likely await motorists this Fourth of July weekend.

Nationally, regular unleaded gasoline averages $4.092, an all-time record according to AAA. That's more than $1 above the price a year ago.

In Fort Collins-Loveland, the average price Wednesday was $4.017, just below the record of $4.018, set Sunday. The average price a year ago was $3.136, according to AAA.

High gas prices will likely keep many motorists home this year, AAA predicts.

If you're one of those who has opted for the "stay-cation" because of high gas prices, you still need to remember your manners. Be sure to drop a thank-you note to Boulder liberal Mark Udall for the chance to stay home and spend more time with those close to you. If you're feeling generous, you could also congratulate Udall for finally achieving the goal of inflicting intense consumer pain at the pump that fits the radical agenda of his environmental interest group friends.

You see, Mark Udall and company don't mind imposing some poverty on hardship and families as they impose their will on society. Some middle-class families' belt-tightening includes passing up the opportunity to travel around Independence Day. Are Mark Udall and his environmentalist friends trapped near their homes - be it Boulder, Eldorado Springs, Denver, or Aspen?

The rest of us would like to see an increase in domestic energy supply to tide us over until truly affordable and usable renewable energy is available. I'll let new blogger Civil Sense sum up, since he does it so well:

One of the reasons America is so free is the nearly limitless personal mobility that the automobile allows. Tomorrow’s technology will solve the energy problems of tomorrow. Today, we need to develop our own domestic oil resources to keep energy prices lower until these new technologies are ready to compete at a larger scale on the energy markets.

That's Bob Schaffer-style common sense, so much at odds with the painful Mark Udall experiment in social engineering. Enjoy your long weekend at home!

Mark Udall Obstructing Reasonable Solutions to Skyrocketing Gas Prices

Gas prices in the Denver area are hitting new records again. Meanwhile, syndicated columnist William Hamilton, in mountain Granby's Sky-Hi News, lays out our nation's current energy problems and where our policies have gone wrong:

In December 2007, Congress adopted the Rep. Mark Udall Amendment to prohibit oil-shale development. As recently as May 15, the Senate rejected Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to overturn the Udall Moratorium. Obviously, Congress still doesn’t get it.

Meanwhile, the Law of Unintended Consequences remains in effect. Attempts to legislate against brand-name Big Oil will negatively impact the no-name Little Oil companies that develop 90-percent of our domestic oil and gas wells. Little Oil produces 68-percent of our domestic oil and 82-percent of our natural gas. Oil wells cost between $1.5 million to $3.5 million to drill. Most of the time, no recoverable oil is found.

Because corporations do not pay taxes (the consumer does), mandating an excess profits tax on our domestic oil corporations just means we pay more at the pump — albeit a highly efficient way for Uncle Sam to take in more cash.

If Congress wants to be constructive, it could rid us of the oil futures speculators. That would have an immediate downward impact on gasoline and diesel prices.
But the long-term solution to our energy needs rests on the fundamentals of: increasing supply, reducing demand and on a fundamental belief that American ingenuity will, someday, invent a fossil-fuel alternative. [emphasis added]

Hamilton correctly identifies Mark Udall as a leading force obstructing our nation's efforts at reasonable energy independence. While it's a major factor, it's more than just because the oil-shale exploration moratorium bears his name.

Mark Udall also is actively trying to "punish the innocent" in his confused populist crusade to raise windfall profits taxes, sure to hurt consumers.

A watcher concisely explains how Mark Udall's green ideology could well push him out of favor with independent voters:

The ugly truth is that four dollar a gallon gas, going to seven dollar gas is a deal breaker. Mark Udall's politics are too idealistic. He wants the public to go from an economy of plenty to an economy of poverty. That might be possible over a long period of time. It is not possible over a small number of years.

Sensible people like Hamilton place a premium on "American ingenuity" to develop affordable and usable alternative energy, but also recognize it takes time and that government fiat will only make getting there harder.Unlike Mark Udall, Hamilton understands basic natural market forces and the need to increase oil supplies as part of the intermediate solution.

Hamilton says that "Congress doesn't get it." But I think he's being too generous - at least in the case of Mark Udall. Udall and Nancy Pelosi are glad to see gas prices skyrocket at consumers' expense to muscle through a costly, restrictive, and economically harmful green agenda. Seven bucks a gallon, anyone?

Robert Redford Woos the Ladies for Mark Udall ... What About Barbra Streisand?

From Penny Parker, Rocky Mountain News columnist-about-town, another example of how Boulder liberal Mark Udall is cashing in off his ties with Hollywood celebrities:

If you're a woman "of a certain age" and you get an e-mail from Hollywood hunk Robert Redford, pay attention. That was PR princess Wendy Aiello's reaction last week when she received the cyberspace message from the actor asking her to donate to Congressman Mark Udall's senatorial campaign.

"I'll tell you, it was fun to open e-mails and see one from Robert Redford," Aiello told me when she forwarded the pitch from the Sundance Kid. "I hope I have a Redford sighting at the Democratic National Convention. I'll be looking for him."

The e-mail missive was sent to roughly 50,000 registered voters, according to Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo.

Somehow I'm doubtful that Mark Udall would get such a response from male supporters if they received an email advertising this Hollywood fundraiser - with or without the picture attached.

Mark Udall: STILL the Candidate to Save the Planet from Destruction by Asteroids

Every once in awhile we work to write something explicitly nice about our least preferred candidate in the U.S. Senate race, Mark Udall. This is the most recent example.

On the national security front, it seems Democrat Senate candidate Mark Udall is still honing his reputation as a warrior against incoming asteroid invasion. As the Bad Astronomy blog points out, today is the 100th anniversary of a damaging asteroid blow to Earth. But who is the hero we can count on to save us from future disaster?

So I congratulate those who study these killers, and who look to our future....And I especially stand up and point to Congress — including my own Representative Mark Udall — which has the foresight to mandate that NASA look into the dangers from the Near Earth Asteroid Apophis.

Mark Udall may indeed be the best-equipped candidate in this race to protect us from destruction by asteroids.

Question For The Candidates

Congressman Udall, your campaign commercial trumpets the importance of refocusing our mission on Afghanistan, "where al-Qaeda is based;" but, if al-Qaeda is "based" in Afghanistan, a. how would you explain the significance of the Pakistani airstrikes over the last several days, which seem to point to Pakistan as the new headquarters of al-Qaeda; b. the recently reported death of Abu Khalad in Mosul, Iraq--a man whose title was "senior leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq"? Mr. Schaffer, what is your view of the seeming contradiction in those facts?

And, for both candidates, since the U.S. handed over primary responsibility for Afghanistan to our NATO allies, along with handing over operational command of our troops, almost TWO years ago, would you advocate overriding NATO and reclaiming responsibility of Afghanistan? For that matter, do you agree with Barrack Obama's once-stated assessment that the U.S. military and intelligence should invade Pakistan--our ally--in pursuit of as-Qaeda leadership?

The Rocky Takes Up The Defense Of Schaffer . . .

Since nobody else seems to want to.

And I'm glad the Rocky noticed, but the underlying issue is still troubling.

I wrote a while ago about the full-scale ad campaign being run at the evening news hour, attacking Bob Schaffer and his ties to oil companies. I concluded this:

Schaffer is being hammered right now about his ties to the oil industry; I'd like to see him hit back and hit back hard at the people who have made it impossible to maintain a household budget any more.

The Rocky writes this today:

Perhaps what Colorado really deserves is a Senate campaign that involves a serious discussion of energy issues rather than sleazy scapegoating. In pursuit of that goal, however, voters apparently won't get any help from the League of Conservation Voters.

To date, both of us have been rather disappointed.

Of course, the Schaffer campaign has not attempted to answer the attack ads, which has left the room entirely void of the serious debate the Rocky is hoping for. And now that speculation has gas approaching $6 in the near future, the absence of that debate is bordering on criminal.

On one level, we suppose, Atkinson's take on the Senate race amounts to conventional wisdom: Unrebutted negative ads take their toll on candidates. Yet in this case the ad is so crude and lurid, and the message so remarkable, that its possible success is a depressing commentary on swing voters in this state. [emphasis mine]

Actually, I disagree--as much as I would like to agree. Given the state of the recent polls in the Presidential race, I find it increasingly easy to believe that the entire country is a "depressing commentary on swing voters." But, more directly, the Rocky has it right: unrebutted negative ads take their toll.

If the ratio of LCV/Udall ads were about 1 to 1, then, given a tough year, one could expect a small margin for Udall; given that the ratio is currently about 10,000 to . . . um, let's see . . . ZERO, that the margin is ONLY 10 points is rather remarkable.

It's early, and I don't want anybody to get too worked up just yet. I just hope that our side doesn't recognize too late that this is a gunfight, and we should pull out something more than our pocket knives.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

2nd Amendment Decision Means Mark Udall Doesn't Have to Vote against Gun Control

Yesterday's absolutely momentous U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of citizens' 2nd Amendment gun rights has a special resonance with this campaign.

Which side of the issue is Mark Udall on now? He refused to sign the brief signed by 300 other members of Congress that argued in favor of the 2nd Amendment right. He has used vague rhetoric to placate gun owners, but four times voted against bills that would have strengthened the rights of D.C. residents to defend themselves in their own homes. If Udall is happy about yesterday's Supreme Court decision, it's only because he hasn't had to go on the record in favor of D.C. residents' 2nd Amendment rights.

Few issues are so crystal clear as this one to show how Boulder liberal Mark Udall is out of step with most of Colorado. Udall ought to be judged not for his vague and insincere rhetoric, but for his record in support of gun control over self-defense.

So Mark Udall Has a History of Questionable Campaign Activities...

We recently posted about the connection between Mark Udall's wife Maggie Fox and the third-party League of Conservation Voters, a group spending hundreds of thousands on attack ads against Bob Schaffer. Rocky Mountain Right follows up, pointing out that such potential coordination wouldn't be the first time for Udall:

One has to wonder the extent of shady impropriety that is occuring between Udall and these left-wing environmentalist groups this year given his past history. In 1998, The Sierra Club was caught "loaning" staff members to Mark Udall's congressional campaign even as Mark Udall's wife was regional representative for the organization.

Read the whole post for details.

Of course, it probably doesn't hurt to mention one more time that not only does Mark Udall have a history of "shady dealings," but so does the League of Conservation Voters - fined $180,000 for illegal activities in 2006.

Mark Udall's Wife Closely Tied to Group Unloading Attack Ads at Bob Schaffer

Mark Udall has built a nine-point polling lead with the tremendous help of a heavy barrage of third-party attack ads. But after a closer look, one can't help but ask if the group's heavy smear strategy is being done as payback for Udall's wife Maggie Fox, or perhaps the result of some collusion with the Boulder liberal candidate.

Clearly, the hypocrisy of Maggie Fox's profitable connections to Mega Fossil Fuel producer Progress Energy is magnified by other connections not yet examined by reporters covering the Schaffer-Udall campaign. An intrepid reader brought my attention to the fact that Fox recently served as president of the group America Votes - a "group that coordinated get-out-the-vote efforts among liberal groups in the 2006 election" (Bara Vaida, “All For One, One For All,” National Journal, March 10, 2007). Fox held the post until she stepped down last June (“Names In The News,” Commercial Appeal, June 4, 2007).

The America Votes "progressive" coalition includes a whole slew of the standard Left-wing groups, such as ACORN, Emily's List, People for the American Way, Colorado's own ProgressNow Action, and the League of Conservation Voters.

Wait, League of Conservation Voters (LCV) ... hmm, where have we heard that name before? That's right, the group throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bob Schaffer for his alleged nefarious ties to "Big Oil." (Also the group that recorded $180,000 in campaign fines during the 2006 election.)

In fact, it seems LCV has a singular obsession with Bob Schaffer, whose name they have put on their "Dirty Dozen" list (with three other names - hey, math isn't their strong suit, leave them alone). Federal Election Commission reports indicate that LCV has spent nearly $637,000 attacking Schaffer and not a nickel attacking any of the three other candidates on their "Dirty [Not Quite Half-]Dozen" list.

If you live in Colorado, most likely you've seen the obnoxious ad played over and over on local television. And ProgressNow Action - also part of the America Votes coalition - has plastered the web pages of local major newspapers with a similar silly anti-Schaffer smear.

That leaves us with at least a couple relevant questions: What relationship does Maggie Fox - and by extension Mark Udall - still have to LCV or ProgressNow? To what extent might this relationship dictate the obsessive attack strategy against Bob Schaffer?

Yet, instead of the sound of journalists' steps hot on the trail of this story, methinks I hear crickets chirping....

If Orr's Earmark Came from Liberal Pat Leahy, the Attack on Bob Schaffer Fizzles

The Lefty blogosphere is all abuzz these days, trying to build another guilt by association case against Bob Schaffer. This time it has to do with William Orr, who lied to secure an earmarked federal grant:

Congress in 2000 awarded Orr the $3.6 million to research the fuel. The money, to come from the Environmental Protection Agency, was in the form of an earmark in an appropriations bill. Earmarks have become controversial in recent years because they are viewed as ways for politicians to slip in money for pet projects.

Schaffer, who served in Congress from 1997 to 2003, said he does not believe he met Orr before 2004.

"I did not advocate his earmark. In fact, I was unaware of his earmark," Schaffer said, adding he voted against the bill that contained the earmark.

Schaffer's enemies would have a real story and a big club to beat him with if he had had anything to do with securing the earmark, rather than merely serving a brief stint on a board connected to Orr's nonprofit ex post facto and stepping down when he learned the facts. But that doesn't make for as juicy a story.

In fact, sources tell me that word on the street is the earmark came from liberal Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont - one of the figures in Congress least connected to Bob Schaffer. While it may take an intrepid fact-checker to verify Leahy is indeed behind the earmark, it would make sense: If it were anyone even closely related to Schaffer, the Lefty attack machine would have already made hay out of it.

Communist Party Joins Mark Udall in Support of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Boulder liberal Mark Udall, Big Labor bosses, 20 percent of the American voting public, and now the Communist Party are all in agreement. What's the issue? Why, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - which deprives workers of a secret ballot in union elections.

What's the connection?

• Mark Udall took $75,000 from union leaders to put his name as a co-sponsor on the Employee Free Choice Act, despite admitting to "serious reservations."


• 8 out of 10 American voters, including 8 out of 10 Democrats, believe the EFCA's approach of robbing workers of the secret ballot is wrong. Opposition to this bill includes majorities "of every age, race, geographic group and both genders."


• Today's big news? Communist Party USA has given its hearty endorsement to EFCA, saying the upcoming elections "must be about working people’s vision — our vision of a new direction for our country." A new direction that apparently includes no secret ballots for workers.

I guess this website's humorous theme isn't quite so far off base, after all.

The First Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Debate Announced: Send Your Questions to 9News

At last, a real live debate in the Colorado U.S. Senate race!:

The July 14th event, sponsored by the Southeast Business Partnership and hosted at the Wildlife Experience in Parker, will be the first time Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-Colorado) share the same stage answering the same questions during the 2008 election season....

9NEWS will moderate the event and give viewers from across Colorado the opportunity to submit the questions asked and the topics covered. Anyone interested in participating in the event can e-mail or text-message a question or comment to: YourShow@9NEWS.com.

Have a favorite issue, but not sure of a good question to ask? Go here to find links to Mark Udall's stated position on a whole range of issues - from the war on terrorism to energy to education to healthcare to taxes to the 2nd Amendment, and more.

See you at the debate.

Mark Udall Wouldn't Join Online Debate Because of Me: The Rest of the Story

If you are one of the handful of people who have been following developments on this blog for months, you may remember that at one point we were working with liberal blogger David Thielen to co-sponsor an online debate between Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer.

In mid-February, David took the lead in sending out invitations to both camps, with my name attached to show that it was a bipartisan effort. On March 18, Bob Schaffer agreed to participate (see also here). Meanwhile, I was told that for weeks the Mark Udall team had dragged its feet and essentially said, "Maybe."

On several occasions I put up posts essentially asking "why in the world is Udall refusing to join a bipartisan online debate?" Well, at long last, here's the answer.

Two weeks after Bob Schaffer's acceptance - on April Fool's Day, in fact - David informed me of the Mark Udall team's official response. Out of deference to David's wishes, I didn't mention the email or divulge its contents publicly - that is, until this weekend when David gave me the green light to explain why Udall refused to join the debate those many weeks ago: The Boulder Democrat didn't want yours truly as the moderator. The alleged reason? The use of the tag "Udall as a Liar" on this blog.

I was quite flattered by the singular reputation I seemed to have acquired from the Mark Udall campaign, but deferentially refused to make public hay out of the matter. Behind-the-scenes negotiations were still under way. The Mark Udall team refused to back down. David mentioned the possibility of a certain anonymous conservative blogger stepping up to fill my place, but that wasn't acceptable. Both sides held firm, and the online debate never materialized.

The Mark Udall camp apparently remains alone in its opinion. As David wrote to me in an email: "I do think you are a reasonable choice and I don't think you are any more partisian than I am - that's why I asked you to do this." I likewise respect David as someone with whom I frequently disagree, but someone who is essentially fair and honest. Unlike Mark Udall surrogates who repeat lies online that this blog is anything but the independent and amateur (though admittedly biased) venture that it is.

David comes from a liberal point of view and often takes strongly critical stances against Bob Schaffer. This blog comes from a conservative point of view and often takes strongly critical stances against Mark Udall. Bob Schaffer isn't afraid of David Thielen. So why is Mark Udall afraid of me? (In all honesty, I hesitate to take this as the high compliment it would seem to be. I'm not sure of any reputable local conservative blogger whom Udall would accept as a debate co-moderator.)

The only question remaining is, Why did David give the go-ahead to disclose all of this now? (These are my best guesses.) First of all, as originally planned, the debate likely would have taken place by now, but no longer seems to be a possibility. Second, it may have something to do with David's newfound low regard for his candidate, whom he now refers to as "Milquetoast Mark."

As for my handful of readers, now you know the rest of the story.

Udall 49, Schaffer 40 In Latest Poll

Rasmussen's latest poll is out--with Udall up 9 points over Schaffer, 49-40.

Rocky Mountain Right has an updated poll tracker.

Quick key points (I'll have more later)--the Secretary of State is now two months behind on updating voter registration numbers for Colorado. With both candidates at 84% of support from their respective parties, it is clear that the battle for independents will decide the race, and this is where Udall's support has grown dramatically. He now leads 51-30, up from 45-33 last month. Though he has still not gone above the rather significant 50% threshold (with undecideds still lurking out there, and most from the much needed independents), Udall's polling strength is clear. Political tailwinds and heavy liberal attack ad buys early on are definitely playing a role, as is the fact that the Democrats' Presidential nominee is known.

The effects of the Democratic National Convention won't be known until September, the debates are still in limbo, and with just under 5 months to go, polling data is still nothing to bet the farm on--just ask the formerly presumptive Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Hollywood Liberal Women Rally to Fund Boulder Liberal Mark Udall's Campaign

From the Politico:

One hundred of Hollywood’s most politically savvy women, ranging in age from early 20s to 75 years old, have been quietly gathering over the past few months, planning the event. It should benefit at least seven challengers to GOP incumbents this November — all of them in Senate seats that might make a serious difference in swinging crucial votes over the next two years, no matter who sits in the White House.

There’s no real organization in place yet, not even a rudimentary website. Going by the formal-sounding name Voices for a Senate Majority, the group has already signed agreements with a half-dozen Democratic challengers — Maine’s Tom Allen, Alaska’s Mark Begich, Minnesota’s Al Franken, New Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen and cousins Tom and Mark Udall from, respectively, New Mexico and Colorado — and is pledging a minimum of $100,000 to each of their campaigns.

Hollywood liberals sending cash to the Boulder liberal ... It won't exactly be the first time. There was the sweet $1,000 contribution from Barbra Streisand to Mark Udall's Senate campaign. Well, after all, Senate candidates who get donations from Hollywood liberals can be some of "the luckiest people in the world."

As September's liberal Hollywood fundraiser for Mark Udall approaches, we're also reminded of his special Left-wing Daily Kos fundraiser.

Mark Udall is becoming known by the company he keeps.

Photoshop by El Presidente.

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.