Udall Bipartisan? Not On Energy

Phony bipartisanship, maybe:

New National Journal Poll: Schaffer-Udall Race Within Margin of Error

A reader has tipped us to the release of a new poll in Colorado's U.S. Senate race that shows the two candidates within the margin of error. The survey was conducted from September 11-15 by Allstate/National Journal among 402 registered voters, with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent (no free link available):

M. Udall 41%
B. Schaffer 38
Undec 19

Not the most reliable of polls, but it follows the recent trend showing the race in a tie or a slight lead for Mark Udall. Interestingly, the raw numbers are the same as a Schaffer-sponsored poll released in late August.

In Taking Money from Those Undercutting Workers' Rights, Mark Udall Is Consistent

Mark Udall has received major fundraising support from retired sweatshop owner Susie Tompkins-Buell. On the other hand, Udall also has co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act in spite of "serious reservations".

Mark Udall has taken thousands of dollars from union leaders to undercut workers' rights to a secret ballot. Udall also has taken thousands of dollars from a former sweatshop owner cited for illegal interrogation and intimidation of underpaid immigrant laborers. What else can be said? At least he has demonstrated some level of consistency.

Of Charlie Rangel & Susie Tompkins-Buell: Mark Udall on Campaign Finance "Ethics"

With Friday's report from the Rocky Mountain News that Mark Udall refuses to return contributions from admitted tax cheat (and fellow Democratic Congressman) Charlie Rangel, the list continues to grow of dirty money flowing into the Udall campaign.

After all, Mark Udall is the only candidate in this U.S. Senate race to take campaign contributions from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Do you remember Norman Hsu, indicted for federal campaign finance violations? Yes, Mark Udall gave $1,000 of his Hsu money to charity. But as blogger Chris Rodriguez pointed out last year:

On top of the $1,000 he's giving back, let's not forget the $5,000 he got from the Hsu funded "For A Change PAC", the $10,000 from the Hsu funded "Searchlight Leadership Fund" (Harry Reid's PAC), and $40,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, also recipients of large Hsu donations.

Norman Hsu. Charlie Rangel. What about Susie Tompkins-Buell?

[Tompkins-Buell's company] Esprit de Corp. was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have illegally interrogated and intimidated $2-an-hour Chinese workers, and then to have shut down a factory to keep them from unionizing. The Department of Labor found that an Esprit contractor doctored payroll records and refused to pay overtime.

Tompkins-Buell - whose "sweatshop" problems were detailed at length in the far-Left Nation magazine on May 16, 1994 - later sold Esprit for millions of dollars, which she now uses as a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, Susie Tompkins-Buell and her husband Mark Buell each gave $2,300 to Mark Udall's campaign on June 19, 2007. Both Tompkins-Buell and her husband list San Francisco as their residence. Also on June 19, the Udall campaign took in nearly $50,000 from a series of San Francisco area contributors - his largest one-day California take in all of 2007. On May 31, 2007 - 19 days before all the funds poured in - the Udall campaign reported paying Tompkins-Buell $972.50 for "event personnel."

So was the retired "sweatshop" owner Susie Tompkins-Buell not only giving thousands to the Mark Udall campaign, but also organizing a $50,000 fundraiser for him? It sure looks that way.

And the Mark Udall campaign has the audacity to say what?

"Bob Schaffer may be the most ethically challenged candidate ever to run for office in Colorado," [Udall spokeswoman Tara] Trujillo said. "When Jack Abramoff's candidate rattles off about campaign contributions, he's getting really desperate."

More ethically challenged than Mark Udall, taking and keeping money from Jack Abramoff, Norman Hsu, Charlie Rangel, and Susie Tompkins-Buell? Puh-lease.

Mark Udall's "bridge to nowhere works fine -- if all the elk know where the crossing is."

What a great one-liner from Bob Schaffer on the campaign trail, as he highlights Mark Udall's low threshold for approving taxpayer-funded earmarks.

The Wall Street Journal's Brendan Miniter explains in his Political Diary:

Washington really is going to the animals. Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat running for an open Senate seat in Colorado, is coming under fire for a $500,000 earmark to build an animal bridge. The funding would be seed money to construct a $10 million bridge over Interstate 70 so elk and large animals would, in theory, be able to cross the road without impeding traffic.

Miniter calls it a "bridge for nobody," providing a cute anecdote that by itself wouldn't mean much, except for the current mood of voters:

This year members of Congress are finding wasteful spending is a political liability.

That's bad news for Mark Udall. And good news for Bob Schaffer - one of the few true fiscal conservatives to serve in Congress in recent years.

Released in the Custody of his Lawyer

Subtitle: More Dribbles Out...

It seems that the Mark Udall campaign does have documents and has released some of them, but in a way that you have to know where to find them.

The joints were on the front seat. The three small bags were elsewhere. Other drugs were involved. It was a real Rocky Mountain High.

It took two cops to arrest him.

Magnum PI was on the scene in hours, just like on TV.

Maybe next week we will get the court order. If Mark Udall saves his clippings, he surely saves his court orders.

Yep, the campaign has released one for littering.

Isn't this fun???

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

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

Rocky Mountain Right aptly notes:

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

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

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

Mark Udall Undercuts His Own Excuse for Voting Against Second Amendment

Mark Udall really doesn't seem terribly interested in getting rid of the U-turn Udall label. From the March 26 Denver Post:

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the Washington, D.C., ban on handgun ownership, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado issued a news release saying he hoped the court would affirm the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms."

But on four occasions when Udall, a Democrat running for an open U.S. Senate seat, could have voted in Congress to repeal all or sections of the gun ban, he did not.

Udall campaign spokesman Taylor West said the congressman did not support the 32-year-old ban but also didn't think Congress was justified in overriding the district while the issue was before the courts.

"He believes in self-rule and the rights of local government," West said. "The people should be able to set their own laws."

Then we noted Mark Udall's excuse for voting against D.C. residents' Second Amendment rights: local government control. But yesterday Mark Udall undercut his own excuse. He voted not once but twice in Congress to interfere with home D.C. home rule on Second Amendment issues - supporting HR 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

Mark Udall, the model of election year inconsistency: It almost makes your head spin.

Mark Udall Mum on Overlooking Reported Scandal in Interior Department Agency

From the Denver Post this morning:

The alarm bells started more than two years ago about a culture of rule-breaking by government workers now embroiled in a scandal of sex, drugs and potential bribery.

A top government investigator repeatedly warned members of Congress that he had uncovered severe ethical lapses at the Minerals Management Service in Lakewood, where workers oversee billions of dollars worth of oil and gas leases.

He said it bluntly at House hearings in 2006. He said it again in early 2007. He warned a Senate committee in January of last year as well.

Congress did little to tighten the rules for the MMS.

According to the article, the costly problem of "severe ethical lapses" is finally being addressed now. Where was Mark Udall through all of this, though?

Reps. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican; Tom Tancredo, a Littleton Republican; and Mark Udall, a Democrat from Eldorado Springs, are on the Natural Resources Committee, which held a February 2007 hearing where [Interior Department Inspector General Earl] Devaney testified about ethical problems at MMS. He also said problems in calculating royalties may have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

The transcript from that hearing does not show any of the Colorado lawmakers asking questions. There is no roll that would show whether they attended. [emphasis added]

The relevant question is whether Mark Udall was at the hearing. If so, why so silent on the issue? If not, where was he: Sick in bed? Gone golfing with lobbyists? At an out-of-state fundraiser with wealthy liberal donors?

Udall, through an aide, did not answer a question about whether more should have been done earlier or what Congress should do next.

Is Mark Udall just hoping the story goes away before he has to answer any questions? Does he have to think up a tale? Cover his tracks? The answer is that we don't know. But his silence feeds the speculation. Lamborn and Tancredo aren't off the hook yet, either.

Perhaps what is most intriguing is that this story is coming out of a locally-based federal government agency that oversees oil and gas leases. Did the "severe ethical lapses" in the agency affect the ability to distribute leases? Given his longstanding opposition to domestic oil and gas exploration, what did Mark Udall think about this?

As noted of Mark Udall in a March 2008 Congressional Quarterly article (subscription required):

His uncle, Stewart Udall, was Interior secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. And from his seat on the Natural Resources Committee, Udall can see a portrait of his father, who chaired the panel (then known as Interior) from 1977 to 1991 and wrote legislation doubling the size of the national park system and tripling the extent of the national wilderness system.

With such a family legacy both in the Interior Department and on the Natural Resources Committee, you would think Mark Udall would take a strong interest in a potential scandal there. Did he simply ignore the warnings? Was something else afoot?

More investigation and reporting is needed to answer these questions.

Bob Schaffer on TV Highlighting Business Experience and Tax-Cutting Record

The election ads are coming fast and furious now. The Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate campaign has released likely its best ad thus far:

In the 30-second spot, Bob Schaffer highlights his business experience and his record as a tax cutter, taking an optimistic tone about empowering average American citizens to help bring the economy back on track. The concise commercial is positive and on message.

Other groups are doing the work of exposing Mark Udall's liberal record.

New NRSC Ad Identifies Mark Udall as "Part of the Problem in Washington"

The National Republican Senatorial Committee tags Mark Udall's voting record as "part of the problem in Washington":

This is one of the clearer and more straightforward ads of the campaign season. Its claims are well-documented, as Boulder liberal Mark Udall has stood against domestic energy exploration, against middle class tax relief, and against funding our troops in harm's way. On these and other important issues, Udall clearly doesn't represent the values of mainstream Colorado.

More Dribbles Out From the Mark Udall Campaign

A knowledgeable someone left the following comment on the "The Ad That Mark Udall Thinks Could Destroy His Campaign" Post:

Mark Udall was charged with simple misdemeanor marijuana possession in 1972. There is absolutely nothing to indicate he was suspected of distributing anything, that's not what he was either initially charged with or convicted of. Your speculation is completely baseless and irresponsible, even by this pathetic blog's nonexistent "standards."

But that's okay, go over the top as far as you like on this, it's broadcasting to your dwindling readership everything they need to know. And not about Mark Udall.

Here's my answer:
1. Your campaign is dribbling the information on this out. When first released months ago, we only found out that Mark Udall had had his car confiscated and was put on a year of probation. Yesterday, in the Denver Post, we are told for the first time that he spent a night in jail and was fined $300. Also, for the first time, we are told that he had some joints and three "small bags" of marijuana. Today on this blog, you tell us that he was charged with simple misdemeanor marijuana possession, but you are withholding the day and place of arrest meaning that nothing you say an be checked. When you actually release hard facts that can be checked, the speculation will stop.

2. I am four years older than Mark Udall meaning that I know what the laws and customs were in 1972. Cars weren't being confiscated from users at the time. Cars were being confiscated from dealers. Mark Udall admits his car was confiscated, strongly suggesting, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (evidence the campaign could provide, if it chose), that Mark Udall was being prosecuted as a dealer and had the charge plea bargained down, but still couldn't keep his car.

3. The facts also might support an initial charge of DUI, except that I do not recall that cars were being confiscated for DUI, sending us back to drug dealing speculation. In 1972, I was an Army Officer who not infrequently busted soldiers for drug use, a too common problem in the army of that era. The easiest way to do a pot bust is by using one's nose. It would be useful to know what violation Mark Udall had committed to get stopped. What made the cop ask for permission to search the vehicle? Is the smoke pouring out of the Freedom's Watch van a metaphor for the smell escaping from a just stopped vehicle being driven by a congressman's kid? Did multiple joints suggest that he was using as he drove down the road? There are so many unanswered questions. If the Mark Udall campaign wants to "clear the air" so to speak, the best way would be to provide answers. Who stopped him and for what? Where and when was the stop made? Why was the car confiscated? How much pot was confiscated and where was it found? Where and when did the trial occur, or was there a trial? Did Udall get special treatment.

We'll worry about our audience. You worry about the answers.

The Ad That Mark Udall Thinks Could Destroy his Campaign

Mark Udall thinks that this ad





could destroy his campaign and has had his lawyer send cease and desist letters to get it taken off the air.

Now, why would Mark Udall think that? Because it suggests smoking dope in quantities that also suggest dealing dope. While he downplayed the amount of drugs found in his car, it was enough to get his car confiscated and put him on probation for a year. He provided the Colorado Springs Independent those details earlier in the year, but didn't bother to tell the Denver Post?

Car confiscation wasn't a source of revenue for law enforcement until the 1990's. Voters will likely forgive the use of drugs, but will they forgive a candidate who was involved in the sale of drugs? That is a different ballgame.

And what legal argument did the lawyer use? Why, the bill didn't provide for the procurement of vans and therefore showing a van isn't truthful. OhhhhhhKay, I guess those peace academy cadets were going to walk.

I think CBS 4 Got It Wrong-Fact Checking the Fact Checker

In the late 1990's, I worked for the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO), sometimes referred to as "star wars," and now called BMDO.

One day, either Ben or Jerry of ice cream fame came by and wanted a million dollars to do anti-SDIO peace stuff. They didn't expect Congress to allocate an extra million dollars for their boondoggle. They wanted to take it out of the program's hide. We were polite to them.

Now comes the CBS 4 analysis of the peace department ad by Freedom's Watch which says in part:

Bottom line. [ Mark ] Udall did support what appears in hindsight to be a goofy legislative proposal. It's certainly fair game in a tough Senate campaign. However, to imply Udall withheld money from the troops because he wanted it for a department of peace, is a misleading claim unsupported by the facts.

I think they are wrong, but don't have the time to do the research to prove it.

Like Ben (or) Jerry of a decade earlier, Mark Udall wasn't asking congress to appropriate extra billions of dollars to fund his "goofy legislative proposal." If memory serves, he wanted billions taken out of the defense department budget and he didn't care whether it meant fewer bullets, fewer uparmored vehicles, or less care for wounded soldiers. If I am correct, and I think I am, to claim that Udall wasn't trying to take funds from programs that supported troops is a "misleading claim unsupported by the facts."

Otherwise, CBS4 did a good job on a humorous commercial produced at a time when humor is needed.

Mark Udall Evades "Serious Reservations", Bob Schaffer Stands Up for Secret Ballots

In a U.S. Senate race with plenty of stark differences between the two major candidates, one of the clearest differences came up in the recent YouTube debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall. First, the question from Justin Wilson and Udall's evasive answer:

Mark Udall completely avoids answering the question, probably because co-sponsoring a piece of legislation that robs workers of the right to a secret ballot can prove to be quite embarrassing.

By contrast, here's Bob Schaffer's answer (H/T Labor Pains blog):

Bob Schaffer speaks for common sense: "You should have the right to privacy when you are casting votes on something so important."

"Smoke-Filled Van" Makes Catchy Point about Mark Udall and Department of Peace

Freedom's Watch does it again. I think we've found another nominee for most creative ad of the political season in Colorado's U.S. Senate race:

You've heard of the proverbial "smoke-filled back room" in politics? In Mark Udall's case, it appears to be a "smoke-filled van."

Writing at The Colorado Index, a watcher speculates that the vehicle featured in the ad might be the missing car confiscated from Mark Udall three decades ago. I don't know about that, but it's clear that Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace has been good for humor more than once in this campaign - this time perhaps the best of them all.

Here's the other TV ad nominee from Freedom's Watch.

Mark Udall's Real Constituency Not Colorado But Environmental Interests

That line in the sand keeps shifting, as Boulder liberal Mark Udall seeks funding from out-of-state donors at an environmentally-themed fundraiser:

Congressman Mark Udall of Colorado, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, will be in Austin for a fundraising lunch at Chez Zee on Monday. The cost is $100 a plate (organizers say they charge less for people who can’t afford that); donors of $250 or more can attend a pre-lunch reception.

Organizers are giving the event an environmental bent: “Like his father, the late Congressman Morris Udall (D-AZ), Mark is a leader on environmental issues,” reads an email sent out last week. “Thanks to Mark, the Rocky Flats nuclear facility is now a wildlife refuge. He is also a leader on alternative energy.”
. . .
What’s interesting to me is that Mark Udall is coming down to Austin at all. He’s in a pretty tight race, it’s two months till election day, and surely there’s a ton of money to be had in Colorado.

The Udall campaign tells me fundraising events are closed to the press. I’m waiting to hear back from a press secretary about the appeal of coming down to Texas.

Which out-of-state political candidates can you name, other than the presidential ones, that have come to Austin in the last couple of years to raise money?

Things must be getting a little tense for the sagging Udall campaign if he is traveling to Texas with less than two months to go until the election to buy votes raise cash for his campaign or for environmental concerns.

Shouldn't Udall be in DC representing his Colorado constituents instead of pandering to environmental special interests either on his or the cause's behalf, now that the long August break is over?

Sentinel: Mark Udall "a Johnny-come-lately" on Comprehensive Energy Solutions

I won't say the editors of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel have followed the lead of this blog's writers, but it's safe to say they've studied many of the same materials and come to a similar conclusion. From their editorial yesterday (you really ought to read the whole thing):

[Mark] Udall is a Johnny-come-lately to the we-have-to-do-everything-we-can solution to the nation’s energy woes. Of course, he really doesn’t mean everything, and some of what he wants to do is nothing more than silly ideas designed to do nothing other than generate votes for his Senate race.

Couldn't have said it any better ourselves. For just a few recent examples:
- Mark Udall: "Shifting Sand"
- Nailing Down Mark Udall's Shifting, Cuban-Centered "Comprehensive" Energy Policy
- Mark Udall Still Says "Heck No" to Offshore Drilling as Part of Comprehensive Energy Solution
- If Mark Udall Has Changed His Mind About Drilling, then What About ANWR?

High Heat From The Western Slope

The Grand Junction Sentinel nails Mark Udall to the wall:

Udall is a Johnny-come-lately to the we-have-to-do-everything-we-can solution to the nation’s energy woes. . . .

Udall said, “We need to throw in the kitchen sink” to solve the energy crisis.Maybe he’ll throw in the kitchen sink, but he won’t throw in drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And it’s only been recently, like since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats it was OK to do so, that he has reluctantly agreed to support offshore drilling. He’s had more than one opportunity to vote for offshore drilling as a member of the House, but has declined repeatedly to do so.

And of course he wants to release oil from the nation’s strategic oil reserve to, he believes, help drive down gasoline prices. The strategic oil reserve is for national emergencies. Electing Democrats to the Senate is not, in our view, anything remotely close to an emergency.

Mark Udall fits the classic mold of the Western Democrat--pose for a while as a moderate, pretend your actual voting record doesn't exist, and then count on a HUGE money advantage to beat your opponent into the ground so you can have your election victory.

Sadly, four weeks of endless attacks on Bob Schaffer don't seem to be doing the trick for Udall.

Again, in what the Dems expected to be a pretty easy race, things are a bit dicey. Expect the really sharp elbows to come out soon.

My Pet Peeve...Mark Udall Wouldn't Know The Truth If...

How can you tell if Mark Udall is lying to the public? Check to see if his lips are moving, either in person or in a commercial. Even the NRSC has noticed: