NRSC Ad: Liberal Mark Udall in Lockstep with Nancy Pelosi 94 Percent of the Time

The latest ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee - still in Colorado - reminds voters of Mark Udall's lockstep Left-wing voting record (voting with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time):

Sure, the marching effect is a little weird, but it makes a point for undecided voters that we made about Mark Udall's record many months ago.

Mark Udall Just Happens to Vote in Boulder (at least he remembered to vote for himself)

From Rocky Mountain Right:

According to the Rocky Mountain News, Boulder liberal Mark Udall turned in his absentee ballot.... in Boulder:

This just in: Mark Udall voted - for himself. The Democratic U.S. Senate candidate turned in his absentee ballot Monday at an early voting site at the University of Colorado.

Are we still supposed to pretend he's not from Boulder?

A fine question, and an interesting observation based on the remark of a reporter who has busily tried to deny the obvious about Mark Udall's place of residence. We've been over this territory before.

Rossputin Takes Up Bob Schaffer's Defense Against Lefty Lies in Rocky Mountain News

At the risk of giving Ross Kaminsky (aka Rossputin) two free links in the course of one week, we recommend you take a look at his insightful column "Schaffer not exactly 'big oil'" in today's Rocky Mountain News. Consider it your weekend reading assignment, and ask yourself why the Lefty Big Blue Lie Machine has been so intent on painting this deceptive picture of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer?

Perhaps, as Kaminsky points out, to deflect from the authentic weakness of their own candidate, Boulder liberal Mark Udall:

During his five years in the energy industry, Bob Schaffer contributed substantially to the federal coffers while working for a local company on projects to increase supply and lower the cost of energy. During that same time, Mark Udall took his salary from the American taxpayers while doing everything in his power to make energy as costly as possible, following the wishes of every liberal and environmentalist group at the expense of the average American who needs to drive to work or heat his home.

It's a point we've made before - though perhaps not quite so elegantly or concisely. But with the truth fighting to get noticed in this frenetic campaign season, it can't be repeated often enough.

Reporter's Claim that Mark Udall "Never Lived in Boulder" Borders on the Absurd

In her "25 things you might not know about Mark Udall" in Saturday's Rocky Mountain News, Lynn Bartels went out of her way to make this questionable statement number one:

1 He's never lived in Boulder, although he's referred to as "Boulder liberal Mark Udall" by his opponents.

I thought we'd been over this one before in discussing Bartels' "case-by-case" approach to airbrushing Boulder from Udall's name.

Lynn Bartels may wish to be more precise. Mark Udall's recent former residence of 6255 Simmons Drive - where he lived for many years, including through much of his term in Congress - doesn't appear to be quite within Boulder city limits. However, not only could you just about throw a stone from within city limits to the house, but also the City of Boulder recognizes it as part of a "subcommunity" known as "Southeast Boulder".

In addition, both Mark Udall's current home and the home on Simmons Drive listed Boulder as his mailing address, and for years he was recognized by the Congressional clerk as "Mark Udall, D-Boulder".

So maybe Lynn Bartels meant to write that Mark Udall has "never lived within the city limits of Boulder." If she had, she probably would have been technically accurate, but readers would have seen it for the pedantic and insignificant distinction that it is.

Why is it so important for Bartels to insist on repeating the spurious claim that Mark Udall has never lived in Boulder? Whether out of spite for Udall's opponent or some other reason, it's her prerogative to do so. But it would be nice at least to see her support for Udall printed in her byline.

Freedom's Watch: "Do You Know Where That Mark Udall Elk Crossing Bridge Is?"

Freedom's Watch continues to amuse and enlighten us with colorful insights about Boulder liberal Mark Udall's record. From the group that brought us "Skip Udall" and the "Smoke-Filled Van," comes a new ad without any human actors - "Hey Elk":

As Bob Schaffer has pointed out, Mark Udall's "bridge to nowhere works fine--if all the elk know where the crossing is."

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.

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.

Bob Schaffer Campaign Exposes Duplicity in Mark Udall's Energy Policy

The Bob Schaffer campaign has contrasted Boulder liberal Mark Udall's energy policy rhetoric with his energy policy record - including a remarkable 15 Congressional votes against offshore drilling, 8 of them within the past 2 years. Ouch! Further proof of we already knew, namely that Udall is out of touch on energy policy.

EarMark Udall--Pro-Pork Votes

The ad:



From Club for Growth:

Washington -- Today, Club for Growth.Net began running a television ad on broadcast television and cable systems throughout Colorado. The $400,000 ad buy will run for two weeks.

Entitled "Waste," the ad details all the wasteful pork projects Rep. Mark Udall has voted for and urges taxpayers in Colorado to call Rep. Udall and tell him to stop sending their tax dollars on such outlandish projects. These projects include a ballet theatre in New York City (RC #668), a park in San Francisco (RC #839), and a lobster institute in Maine (RC #735). In fact, out of 50 separate amendments to remove pork projects from the FY 2008 appropriations bills, Mark Udall voted against 49 of them. In other words, Rep. Udall voted in favor of wasteful earmark spending 98 percent of the time.

"Mark Udall needs to change his wasteful spending policies," said Club for Growth.Net President Pat Toomey. "If Mark Udall wants to spend his own money on a ballet theatre in New York and a lobster institute in Maine, that's his prerogative, but Colorado taxpayers shouldn't be expected to foot the bill. This ad seeks to educate people in Colorado about how Rep. Udall is voting. We encourage them to call Mark Udall and tell him to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on pork projects."

Boulder Liberal Udall. Can't Keep His Promises Udall. EarMark Udall.

Or as we like to say here at SvU: Mark Udall-The Only Place He Wants To Drill Is Your Wallet.

Oink.

Just another broken promise, as SvU has tracked Udall's "no earmarks" pledge.

Yesterday, July 30: A Day the Mark Udall Campaign May Look Back On in Regret

213-212. Less than 48 hours after he mad a promise to vote to keep Congress busy to deal with the nation's domestic energy problems, Mark Udall showed up a few minutes too late to cast an important vote. And that favorable interpretation requires taking him at his word.

You know, he was too busy raising funds for his Senate campaign to show up and cast important votes. It doesn't say much about how well Mark Udall would represent Colorado as a U.S. Senator.

Reports the Denver Post:

[Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.

First, when did Taylor West - one of two people who believed Mark Udall actually won the first debate - resume official PR duties for the Udall campaign?

Second, Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have saved Mark Udall from choosing between breaking a public promise and voting against a long history of energy obstruction likely will be too transparent to work. But she didn't do Udall any favor. Pelosi is more concerned about saving many of her House Democrats seeking re-election from having to cast a vote on the issue than securing Colorado's U.S. Senate seat for her party. Translation? Nancy Pelosi threw Mark Udall under the bus.

Of course, this all assumes we give Mark Udall all the benefit of the doubt. After all, based on his record, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Udall has any serious intention to go against his entire Congressional career by seeking to improve America's domestic energy supply. Yes - the only place Mark Udall wants to drill is your wallet.

Fourteen weeks from now, on Election Night, the events of yesterday well may be looked back upon as a critical and decisive moment in the U.S. Senate race. And that would be bad news for Mark Udall.

Flashback: Mark Udall's War Flip-Flop Puts Him Temporarily Out of Left's Favor

Our hats are off to Rocky Mountain Right (RMR) for repeatedly hitting the nail on the head about Mark Udall. The latest coup d'etat is a posted video showing Udall's highly strained relationship with the anti-war Left that had invested so much hope in their Boulder liberal candidate - especially after he co-sponsored the Department of Peace - the result of being hurt by Udall's violent flip-flopping.

Writes RMR:

Mark Udall's supporters are complaining that Bob Schaffer's "checkmate" moment over the Iraq War at the Senate debate was an unfair attack and are trying to make out like Udall is a darling of the anti-war movement. This YouTube video uploaded by anti-war activists last year shows that they don't seem to like him all that much and suggests that this may be a looming problem for Udall with the Democratic base.

Go and check out the video, watch Mark Udall dodge question after question (good thing he didn't have any of his constituents put in jail), and tell a Lefty friend to go with their conscience and give a second look at Bob Kinsey for U.S. Senate.

Grand Junction Sentinel Joins Act of Airbrushing "Boulder" from Mark Udall

Rocky Mountain News reporter Lynn Bartels appears to have started a trend in airbrushing the "Boulder" label in quoted descriptions of Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall.

Mark Udall's opponent Bob Schaffer submitted an op-ed to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel that was published this morning. A copy of Bob Schaffer's draft was shared with this blog, bringing to light a couple interesting changes made by the Sentinel. (Emphases are added to highlight the differences.)

1. Here is Bob Schaffer's draft:

Sadly, some of the worst culprits are from Colorado. I’m running against one of them – Boulder’s Democratic Congressman Mark Udall.

Here's the edited version:

Sadly, some of the worst culprits are from Colorado. I’m running against one of them — Boulder County Democrat Mark Udall.

Nothing inaccurate in the original description, but that didn't seem to matter.

2. From Bob Schaffer's draft:

The liberal views espoused by Boulder’s Congressman couldn’t be more different than mine.

And then what the Sentinel published:

The liberal views espoused by Udall couldn’t be more different than mine.

Would the editors justify this change as an essential way to cut extra words and save space? Perhaps, but coupled with the first instance, it looks more like part of a policy that changes one candidate's words while ignoring pertinent facts about his opponent.

It looks like the Western Slope's biggest newspaper has adopted Lynn Bartels' "case-by-case" approach to deciding when and how the term Boulder can be used to describe the man who has represented Boulder in Congress for nine years, who for years was officially recognized by the Congressional clerk as "Mark Udall, D-Boulder", who has publicly referred to Boulder as his "touchstone", and who stated last year that he would not be affected by the "Boulder liberal" tag.

In what ways did the Sentinel edit Mark Udall's column?

Mark Udall Has Current Edge, But New Campaign Phase About to Begin

From CQ Politics' latest analysis, Colorado's U.S. Senate is the fourth most likely to change hands in this fall's election. After noting Mark Udall's recent lead in the polls, they add:

The state still is closely divided politically and Republicans say they are confident that their candidate, conservative former Rep. Bob Schaffer, will hold the seat by proving to voters that Udall, whose political base is in the liberal college town of Boulder, is too far left for Colorado....

Mark Udall currently has the edge, but the race is sure to tighten up as it enters a new phase in which:

1) Bob Schaffer gets to ply his natural edge in televised debates with Boulder liberal Mark Udall
2) The arrival of the Democratic National Convention provides an opportunity for independent voters to see some of Mark Udall's less respectable cousins up close and personal
3) Voters across Colorado get engaged with the issues and the campaign while still paying four dollars or more per gallon at the pump

While Schaffer v Udall has been covering Colorado's U.S. Senate showdown in earnest for more than a year, the longest and most in-depth part of the campaign lies ahead.

Despite My Mistake, Mark Udall's Still Dishonest about 9/11 and Dept. of Peace

When an error of fact is pointed out, I'm quick to make a correction. One of our favorite commenters absurdicus noted that I uncritically quoted a misstatement in this post about Mark Udall's deceitful statement that 9/11 changed him. In that post I quoted a watcher, who wrote "Mark Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace bill didn't take place until after 9/11."

Absurdicus comments in response:

wrong, wrong, wrong. He signed on as cosponsor on JULY 11, 2001. Last time I checked July came before September.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR02459:@@@P

If you and grandpa mcgrumpy are gonna lie and lie and lie, at least make it something where it's not so easy to find proof of your lies. But, nice job at projecting. That, you do well.

Absurdicus is correct (and I invite you to follow the link), but foolishly attacks our speck while the beam bulges from his candidate's eye. If 9/11 truly changed Mark Udall's views about the Department of Peace, it seems he would have revoked his co-sponsorship, oh, relatively soon after 9/11. It hardly matters to this point whether Udall first co-sponsored the Department of Peace legislation two months before 9/11 or two months afterward. The question of importance is when he terminated his co-sponsorship.

As the National Republican Senatorial Committee documented well, it took Mark Udall two-and-a-half years after 9/11 to drop his co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace: March 17, 2004. Coincidentally, though, it came one week after he first announced he was running for U.S. Senate. Does anyone still want to argue credibly that he changed his position on the issue because of 9/11? Or is it much clearer now that the move is part of Boulder liberal Mark Udall's careful calculation to remake his image as he runs for statewide office?

To absurdicus, I know you were trying to take the heat off Mark Udall and to make us look bad. You're just doing your job. But I also appreciate the opportunity to correct my minor error quickly and to explore the issue again - to re-emphasize the fraud in Udall's claim that 9/11 changed his views on the Department of Peace.

I'm willing to acknowledge and correct my mistake. But the problem with Mark Udall's statement about 9/11 and his support for the Department of Peace remains. Is he willing to acknowledge and correct his "mistake"?

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?

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.

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.

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....

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.