Facilitating Fraud by Disabling Online Contribution Security ... Mark Udall, Too?

Apparently the disabling of basic security settings on online contributions isn't isolated to the Barack Obama campaign. According to Ed Sealover in the Rocky Mountain News, an intrepid Coloradan tested Mark Udall's contribution system:

Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams said that because Udall accepts money from sources such as prepaid credit cards that allow users to be anonymous, he can skirt campaign-finance limits and laws....

Wadhams said that after he'd gotten a tip that Udall, a Democrat, allowed the same practice, a Schaffer supporter made two $1 donations under the name of Steve Mason and included a fake address without questioning from Udall's Web site. The unnamed supporter tried the same thing with Schaffer's site but was prohibited from doing so, Wadhams said.

Schaffer finance director Janel Domenico said the Republican's Web site requires credit card users to input their billing ZIP code and rejects anyone whose ZIP code does not match with the cards. This is standard practice among stores, too, and a campaign would have to disable part of its security settings to accept prepaid cards without a billing address, she said.

Without any proof of who the donor is, a campaign could take money from individuals who want to give more than the $2,300 limit or from foreign residents who are banned from donating, Wadhams said.

"It opens the door for fraud," Wadhams said. "I don't understand why they would do it."

Nor do I.

Is this in the Democratic playbook for 2008? Congratulations if they've found a legal loophole whereby they can disable basic security and collect funds from who knows where. I'm sure once they're in power over all branches of government, closing the loophole will be at or near the top of their reform agenda.

How Big is Colorado's Barack Obama and Bob Schaffer Voting Contingent?

Over at Human Events, Ross Kaminsky notes the challenges faced locally by the GOP but says that Colorado races are "still in Republican reach". Kaminsky reprints part of his recent interview with U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, who answered the question how the campaign is doing:

Schaffer: The response we’re getting on the campaign trail is very encouraging, with large and enthusiastic crowds at our events, much like the enthusiasm we just saw for Sarah Palin’s recent events in Colorado. Our phone banking is contacting tens of thousands of voters every night. The response is extraordinarily encouraging. We even run across surprisingly large numbers of voters who identify themselves as “supporting Obama and Schaffer.” [emphasis added]

Bob Schaffer undoubtedly is going to need a large percentage of the late-breaking undecided voters to come his way, and that includes some Obama supporters, too. Yes, voting for Barack Obama AND Bob Schaffer seems like an odd combination, but plenty of independents will be shaking out their decisions in all sorts of ways that don't make sense to the political insiders.

What that means for outcomes on November 4 is anyone's guess at this point.

Mark Udall's Votes Abet Economic Crisis, Aided by Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Money

When it comes to the current economic crisis, liberal Washington insider Mark Udall once again proves he is more a part of the problem than of the solution. In February 2005, then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress of letting the bloated institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to grow with low capital and high risk.

On October 26, 2005, Udall voted against amendments that would have added capital to the mortgage lending giants and authorized them to sell off or acquire assets or liabilities, "if an asset or liability is deemed to be a potential systemic risk to the housing market, the capital markets or the financial system."

Let's be honest here. There are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who screwed up by making these votes. Mark Udall is with them on the wrong side of history.

More interestingly, according to the Federal Election Commission, Mark Udall has taken $3,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now that's not nearly as much as Barack Obama has taken from the failed financial institutions.

And it's not as much as Udall has taken from tax cheat Charlie Rangel's PAC, from retired sweatshop owner Susie Tompkins-Buell, or from campaign finance violator Norman Hsu, and twice as much as Udall received from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

Latest Poll Overstates Mark Udall's Lead - Bob Schaffer's Work Still Cut Out for Him

A new poll from the Democrat firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows Boulder liberal Mark Udall with a 47-38 lead over Bob Schaffer.

What can we take away from the survey? That Mark Udall is still ahead, but that his lead may be starting to slip. Yes, Udall topped Schaffer 49-40 in the last Rasmussen poll, the same difference as yesterday's results. But the more recent PPP poll has a skewed sample of respondents: 40% Democrat, 36% Republican, 24% Other. Actual registration figures for Colorado are: 35% Other, 34% Republican, 31% Democrat.

With partisan affiliations factored in, Mark Udall's edge is trimmed to 46-39. Interestingly, the same calculation made in the Presidential race puts Barack Obama and John McCain into a virtual dead heat in Colorado - opposed to the 47-43 Obama edge touted by PPP.

Just because the latest poll gives Mark Udall an extra two-point cushion is no great consolation. Bob Schaffer still has a lot of work to do to persuade independent voters in an uphill election year for Republicans, but highly visible debates can only help his cause.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates? Barack Obama--Sure! Mark Udall--Not So Much

From a story in USA Today that highlights the discussion between the two major presidential candidates about proposed debate formats:

[Barack] Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Wednesday that while the town-hall idea is appealing, the campaign would recommend a less-structured, lengthier exchange more in line with the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. [emphasis added]

Such a revelation brings some added irony on this blog.

Just yesterday Mark Udall finally endorsed Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, tomorrow makes four full weeks since Udall's opponent Bob Schaffer challenged him to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Sunday will be three full weeks since the editors of the Rocky Mountain News urged Mark Udall to accept the offer for at least one such debate.

And still, Mark Udall is hiding from any unscripted debate in which voters could get a true glimpse of both candidates.

Liberal Barack Obama loves the Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Boulder liberal Mark Udall, who just cast his lot with Obama, is running away from them.

Mark Udall Backs Barack Obama, Disparager of "Bitter" Rural Coloradans

So Boulder liberal Mark Udall finally decided to cast his superdelegate lot, and he threw his support behind Barack Obama, the elitist candidate who has disparaged rural, blue-collar Americans.

(H/T Rocky Mountain Right)

Superdelegate Mark Udall Finally Decides on Obama, Still Avoiding Debate Challenge

The heat is finally off Mark Udall as a superdelegate. Based on a report from Politicker's Jeremy Pelzer, Udall has fallen in line by giving his endorsement to the now-inevitable candidacy of Barack Obama.

Just yesterday we wondered when Mark Udall might make the obvious choice. We're glad to see he didn't waste too much time on this important decision.

Now that the pressure to make a superdelegate endorsement is off Mark Udall's back, maybe he can focus on Bob Schaffer's request to have unscripted, Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. Nearly four weeks has gone by since the request was issued, and Udall has continued to hide from the challenge.

The Udall Watch superdelegate timer has disappeared, but the running clock that highlights Mark Udall's debate avoidance remains.

Superdelegate Mark Udall Taking His Time to Make the Obvious Choice

Superdelegate Mark Udall has not exactly been a profile in courageous leadership. Even as the rest of the world has figured out that Barack Obama will be the Democrats' Presidential nominee, Udall and some of his fellow Colorado Congressional Democrats are stuck on the fence:

Sen. Ken Salazar on Monday met with three other Democratic senators who are uncommitted superdelegates, but he insisted afterward that he hadn't made up his mind whether to back Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He and three other Colorado superdelegates — Congressmen John Salazar and Mark Udall and Gov. Bill Ritter — have yet to publicly back either candidate. Pressure on the uncommitted delegates is mounting as Democratic Party leaders are eager to begin trying to unify the Clinton and Obama camps.

So what's Mark Udall's reason for holding out on Barack Obama?

Rep. Udall's office could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, the Udall Watch timer counts down.

Mark Udall's Ranks of Undecided Superdelegates Continue to Dwindle

Grand Junction Sentinel political reporter Mike Saccone points out today that Colorado's list of undecided superdelegates has been whittled down to four: Congressman John Salazar, Sen. Ken Salazar, Gov. Bill Ritter and Congressman Mark Udall.

Superdelegate Mark Udall has 2 months, 26 days until the Democratic National Convention to state his preference. Most everyone seems to be taking it for granted that Barack Obama has all but secured the nomination. Is Udall waiting to be the last Colorado superdelegate to make up his mind?

Mark Udall says a decision is coming in June. We'll wait and see.

What Political Favor is Mark Udall Holding Out for from Hillary Clinton?

With momentum growing behind the Barack Obama campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination but an insufficient number of pledged delegates for either candidate to win outright, the heat is picking up on superdelegate Mark Udall and his Colorado peers.

Rocky Mountain Right asks the most penetrating question in this developing story of intraparty rivalry: "What did Hillary Clinton Promise Mark Udall?" Or, as he elaborates:

At this point holding out only benefits one person in the race: Hillary Clinton. In a state where practically the entire state party backs Obama it makes sense that Clinton supporters would stay quiet or risk political suicide. The question now is: what did Hillary Clinton offer Mark Udall that is compelling enough for him to defy 66% of his base and refuse to endorse his party's presidential nominee?

A good question I gladly echo here. Where is the enterprising reporter who will ask Mark Udall directly, or who will dig deeper to find out the rest of the story here?

Udall Watch Unveiled ... Mark Udall Says Decision to Come in June ... Coincidence?

Last Friday, Schaffer v Udall unveiled the "Udall Watch", giving a countdown to the Democratic National Convention for superdelegate Mark Udall to make a decision between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yesterday the Grand Junction Sentinel reported (before the results from the Indiana and North Carolina primaries were made apparent):

Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Tuesday he remains committed to being formally undecided until sometime in June.

“If the contest is still under way in June, I think it’s incumbent on superdelegates who are uncommitted to weigh in at that point,” Udall said.

Coincidence? Probably so.

Udall Watch and the Difficult Decision of Colorado Democrat Superdelegates

Not only are Mark Udall and other Democrat superdelegates paralyzed with indecision about which candidate to support, the Rocky Mountain News reports today that Colorado Democrats themselves are still undecided about who one of their superdelegates should be:

Mayor John Hickenlooper and former Mayor Federico Pena will likely face off this month to be named Colorado's one at-large "superdelegate" to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The two are the only nominees for the slot, which could have national implications because superdelegates likely will decide the contest between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

Unlike delegates who are pledged to a candidate based on the outcome of their state's primary or caucus, superdelegates are free to vote for whomever they think has the best chance of winning in November.

In honor of all the recent news about Mark Udall's superdelegate troubles, Schaffer v Udall this morning has unveiled Udall Watch - a countdown clock until the Democratic National Convention and the Boulder liberal Senatorial candidate's impending decision: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

On Superdelegate Mark Udall's "Recurring Nightmare"

In a Los Angeles Times column today, political scientist Norman Ornstein highlights the serious challenge faced by Democratic superdelegates:

As the front-runner, Obama is playing it cool, although he is still using his spare moments to call superdelegates and chat. If Obama wins Indiana, odds are that a pent-up flood of supers finally will endorse him on May 7, signaling an early end to the process. If he holds Clinton's edge in Indiana to somewhere close to 2% and wins North Carolina by anywhere close to the 15% margin he holds in the polls, odds are that a trickle of superdelegate Obama endorsements will become a steady stream, resulting in a slower May decision.

If neither of these scenarios pan out, the supers will try mightily to resolve the issue on or after the last active voting on June 3, to keep their convention from careening out of control. But they need a good reason to end their torture. Ambiguous results, damaging enough to Obama to keep him from closure but not definitive enough to move these reluctant power brokers to the Clinton camp, are their recurring nightmare. [emphases added]

Superdelegate Mark Udall, the Democrat U.S. Senate candidate from Colorado, has as much or more to lose than any of his fellow undecideds - especially if the Denver convention does careen "out of control."

A "recurring nightmare" is not a good way to get a good night's sleep.

Silent Superdelegate Mark Udall Betraying Elitist Sympathies with Obama

An apparently unofficial Barack Obama supporter at a site called "Obama Blog" is urging readers to put the pressure on undecided superdelegates such as Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall.

More than a week has gone by, and Mark Udall still is avoiding the question of whether he shares Obama's elitist views about "bitter" small-town Americans who cling to guns, religion, and bigotry. By not condemning these views, it seems fair to assume that Udall either holds them personally or just doesn't feel they're a big deal.

Mark Udall grew up in Washington, D.C., the son of a United States Senator (who "ran for the Democratic nomination for President as a liberal alternative to the Southern centrist Jimmy Carter" in 1976). Maybe that lies behind any elitist sympathies.

After the stinging results of the Pennsylvania primary that look increasingly likely to push the Democratic race for President to the August convention in Denver, Mark Udall may be having second thoughts.

Does Superdelegate Mark Udall Share Barack Obama's Views on Small-Town America?

About 10 days ago I noted that Mark Udall's dilemma as a Democratic superdelegate was "looking as sticky as ever." Now, with the revelations of Barack Obama's true elitist feelings about "bitter" middle America, it seems the choice would be easier.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) wants to know where Udall stands:



My only quibble with the NRSC ad comes insofar as I agree with Charles Krauthammer's analysis:

The word that is killing him here is not "bitterness," it is "cling," because it drips of condescension. They cling to guns and religion because they are too stupid to understand their own class interests. And that is his message.

Maybe this statement by Barack Obama isn't enough to persuade Mark Udall to endorse primary opponent Hillary Clinton. But Udall could at least come out and give a clear and strong condemnation of these liberal elitist views.

By his continuing silence in failing to respond to the outrageous remarks by a leader in his own party, Mark Udall is leaving small-town Coloradans (who may happen to own guns, go to church, and/or have differing viewpoints on immigration) to wonder what he thinks of them, too.

Mark Udall's Superdelegate Decision Dilemma Looking as Sticky as Ever

If there's any credence to this report on the New York Times blog, it looks like superdelegate Mark Udall will be waiting to declare his preference for a Presidential candidate until the Democratic National Convention in August.

Four weeks ago we wrote about the dilemma Mark Udall was facing:

Go with the guy who won big majorities at the Colorado caucus and still kind of looks like the frontrunner despite nagging scandals and incompetent advisers. -OR- Pick the wildly unpopular and shrill former First Lady who suddenly has campaign momentum and who could make your life miserable if she ends up the nominee, especially if you wait too long to back her.

The dynamics of the race have shifted once or twice since then, but the New York Times blog still sees the two-candidate showdown dragging on until Denver:

Hillary has no incentive to bow out early, and every incentive to stay in until Obama is officially the nominee -­ something that won’t happen until the convention.

Does Mark Udall want to take the Convention stage with far Left Barack Obama, whom some might say fits more closely as his "touchstone" candidate? Or does Mark Udall want to take the Convention stage with Hillary Clinton, wildly unpopular in Colorado (44 percent favorable, 55 percent unfavorable) and probably even more so after eking out the nomination with the pragmatic but undemocratic intervention of the superdelegates?

It could even get messier and more confusing: political guru Michael Barone sees a plausible scenario where Barack Obama wins the delegate count but Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote.

What to do then? Udall probably wants to put this decision off as long as possible.

In Schaffer v Udall Battle, Coloradans Offered Clear Choice

"The two likely candidates in this year's U.S. Senate contest, Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, served side-by-side in Congress from 1999 through 2002. Over those four years, they cast 2,036 votes together, often on symbolic or non-controversial matters. And yet they still managed to disagree more than half the time - 1,078 times, to be precise"--Rocky Mountain News

As the Rocky Mountain News points out, Senate candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall are as different as night and day:

If you think Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, disagree on 1,000 different things, that's close.

From 1999 through 2002, when they worked across the aisle from one another in the U.S. House of Representatives, they cast opposite votes a whopping 1,078 times.

That long and detailed record makes the 2008 contest a rarity in state politics. Not since 1986, when Democrat Tim Wirth faced Republican Ken Kramer, have two one-time House colleagues gone head-to-head in a U.S. Senate race.

"Talk about a paper trail. This is a paper trail that leads into the Rockies for this Senate race," said Norman Provizer, a political science professor at Metropolitan State College in Denver. "They represent two very differing views on all kinds of issues. If you look at it from an issue perspective, they aren't Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum."

The Rocky Mountain News analyzed all 2,036 congressional votes, big and small, that Schaffer and Udall cast during their four years together in the House. It's more than enough to keep the ad-makers on both sides busy in the run-up to November.

Fair use prevents a lengthier quotation (the article is quite long and extensively researched), but here are a few highlights:

Schaffer's stance is first, Udall's second

Military issues

* IRAQ WAR: Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. (Oct. 10, 2002) YES NO

* SPENDING: An amendment that would have imposed a 1 percent, across-the-board cut on military programs. (May 18, 2000) NO YES

* RECRUITING: Amendment to education spending bill that would have prohibited funds from being used to block military recruiting at secondary schools. (June 13, 2000) YES NO

Homeland security

* ANTI-TERRORISM LAW: The anti-terrorism law, the Patriot Act, first enacted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (Oct. 12, and Oct. 24, 2001)YES NO

* ARMING PILOTS: Legislation to allow airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit as a defense against terrorism. (July 10, 2002)YES NO

Education

* SCHOOL CHOICE: Amendment to the proposed "No Child Left Behind Act" that would have allowed students from low-performing schools, or crime victims from "unsafe schools," to choose to attend private schools using public funds. (May 23, 2001)YES NO

Taxes

* BUSH TAX CUTS: Approval of White House-backed tax cuts of the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001." (March 8, 2001)YES NO

* TAX LIMITS: A proposed constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds majority votes to approve new tax increases. (June 12, 2002)YES NO

Takeaways?

This contest pits candidates from rival parties that present a clear difference in viewpoints. The common charge that most candidates in any election are "basically the same" can simply not be applied in this case.

Schaffer-Republican-Conservative

Udall-Democrat-Liberal

The move to the "middle" where both sides believe the election will be won features an unaffiliated voting bloc poised to become the largest pool of registered voters in Colorado. Schaffer acknowledges that the state's tilt has been blue since 2004; Udall realizes that he is not the "moderate" that either Sen. Ken Salazar or Gov. Bill Ritter were (or purported to be) when they ran statewide.

The most recent poll shows both candidates within the margin of error (Udall leads 46-43), a clear toss-up, in spite of the MSM's continued meme that the seat is really Udall's to lose.

The votes revealed (or re-revealed, in some cases, for those political junkies who have been following this blog) will be the subject of campaign fodder, political ads, and 527 mudslinging for the next 7 months.

The only thing that can be agreed on--the stature and importance of this race. Republicans see the seat as an opportunity to roll back further losses due to retirement and a generally unfavorable political climate that has persisted since 2006. Democrats envision not only a pick-up, but an advance toward the potential 60 vote filibuster-proof supermajority.

Exit question: with Republicans settled on Sen. John McCain as their nominee, and the Democrats witnessing a fierce race rage on between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, which candidate stands to benefit from their respective party's nominee? Who is helped more, or flipping that proposition, who is hurt the least?

**Update:
Ryan Sager is rather pessimistic about the GOP's chances in the "interior West" unless Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee, but Daniel Larison has a different explanation for the region's recent trend to blue, and asks--is it really a recent development, and can short term trends be extrapolated into long term outcomes?

The Washington Post and Lying

We find it unfortunate that so much of the space in this blog of late has been devoted to exposing and documenting the bodyguard of lies being told to get Mark Udall elected.

It seems that the Washington Post has discovered that the same thing is happening with the Democrat Presidential candidates and a lot of folks aren't all that happy about it.

With colleagues in Congress quick to claim credit where it is due, word moves quickly when undue credit is claimed.

"If it happens once or twice, you let it go," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter. "If it becomes the mantra, then you go, 'Wait a minute.' "

We are reminded of the words of Mark Udall's unofficial campaign spokesman who observes that "a lie is just a campaign tactic that the other side doesn't like," or something to that effect.

Do read the Washington Post article if you care about the Presidential election. Our interest is limited to our regular theme that too much of Democrat politics and strategy is tied to keeping the Big Blue Lie Machine well oiled and well fueled, in an environmentally friendly way, of course.

Blogosphere Pushback

Yesterday, we reported Mark Udall's ill-advised decision to use Cara DeGette as its front person on any subject.

Today, we note that the blogosphere is beginning to comment on the eight year old document she published:

Best Destiny has a memo to Cara Degette - go back to logic class:

Your writing is without a point...

But, again, what's most laughable is the complete lack of an argument from [ Cara ] DeGette. Maybe it no longer matters in the Democratic world to actually articulate your points and defend them with reason--certainly, Barack Obama seems content not to actually make an argument about anything.

Best Destiny then proceeded to make arguments about several issues that DeGette could only mention as part of a reprinted list with no supporting argument.

Also today, The Colorado Index produced an essay observing that DeGette needs to check her dictionary before she tries to use words longer than four letters, having abused the use of the word "screed." She seems to understand four letter words and use them regularly without problem.

The real point of that essay was laid out in its title: Gun Rights - Still a Sharp Contrast Between the Parties.

One of the dirty little secrets of the 2006 campaign is that the Democrats bamboozled a number of Republican voters into voting for Bill Ritter because he claimed that he would build shooting ranges throughout the state and because he would protect "hunter's rights." So far, there doesn't seem to be money for shooting ranges and Bill Ritter's record on guns more closely matches his earlier gun control stance than any expansion of rights.

It is difficult to see what value Mark Udall's campaign got from 1) using Cara DeGette as its publicist and 2) digging up a document that will help Bob Schaffer far more than it will hurt him, if it hurts him at all.

Udall Afraid Continued Clinton/Obama Battle Will Have Negative Down-Ticket Consequences

From the New York Times:

Suddenly the Democratic presidential race is teetering on the edge — not just between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, but between boost or burden for the party’s hopes in the fall.

So far, the clash between the two history-making candidacies has appeared to be an unalloyed benefit to the party. In state after state, Democrats displayed their enthusiasm through robust primary turnouts that drew in many new voters. If Clinton and Obama supporters have fallen into consistent niches by gender, income, education and ethnicity, polls show that most Democrats would happily support either one in November.

But now the threat of stalemate, vituperation and disillusionment hangs over a contest structured to declare a verdict a month ago. Potential fallout could imperil Democratic hopes for both the presidency and larger Congressional majorities.

“I’m very concerned,” said Representative Mark Udall of Colorado, who needs Democrats in his state to unite behind his bid for the Senate seat held by Wayne Allard, a Republican who is retiring. Mr. Udall warned that unity “could be a real challenge, especially as this thing grows more fierce.”

No doubt the threat of violence and mayhem at the Democratic National Convention in August--with groups there to Recreate '68--will not play well if Denver is trashed or the scene from the convention floor is one of intraparty rancor and argument.

But Udall is also concerned about the money, as in the money he can't raise if it is siphoned off by warring Democratic factions:

A prolonged fight poses special risks to the party’s drive to build a working majority in the Senate. Frenetic fund-raising by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, which collected $90 million in February alone, diminishes the pool of cash available to Senate candidates.
. . .
Mr. Udall said he opposed second-chance “mulligans” for Michigan and Florida. But he said he favored one last contest after the primaries end in early June — a “national caucus” in the form of swift decisions by superdelegates who remain uncommitted. Mr. Udall is one of them.

“Another 60 days probably doesn’t hurt us,” he said. “At that point, we’ve got to decide on a nominee.”

It will take at least $7-10 million for each candidate to wage a formidable campaign. The liberal big bucks will still be there, but tapped-out small time donors that have given to Clinton or Obama may not be there in as great a number should the Presidential nomination come down to the wire in a brokered and messy Denver convention.

The continued focus on the nomination will also prevent Udall himself from stealing the spotlight on Denver for his own promotion, becoming completely overshadowed in the intervening months.