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"?

Analogy for Absurdicus: A Chance to See the Big Blue Lie Machine from the Other Side

The silly little troll working on Mark Udall's behalf has returned, coming by with a snappy riposte. In response to my observations on the the Denver Post's slime job on Bob Schaffer, absurdicus writes two comments. First:

Wait I don't get it. If there's nothing wrong with being associated with Abramoff, then why is it bad that Reid got donations from some of his clients? You can't have it both ways Ben. As to your defense, there's nothing to see here, move along please, it's interesting that you can't separate paying for a trip and arranging one.

First off, ironically, absurdicus is the one who can't separate paying for a trip and arranging it (actually, some part of the trip). But that's a minor point. And I'll forgive him the mistake.

I say, let's take a serious look at the files at Colorado State University, where the records of Bob Schaffer's trip are kept. Let's examine them openly and honestly. But that's clearly not what absurdicus, Taylor West, and Mark Udall's other surrogates are after. They want to throw together a bomb made of political mud and slime, hoping that on detonation the name "Jack Abramoff" might stick next to Bob Schaffer. They don't care if there's any real evidence.

If we do open up the files, look at the facts, have an honest discussion, then find that no real connection exists, I'm afraid then it will be absurdicus who has to excuse himself from this discussion and say: "there's nothing to see here, move along please." Show me the evidence.

Here's the primary problem for absurdicus (and others following Mark Udall's lead): He conflates vastly different kinds of association, which leads to all sorts of faulty assumptions. To clear up the confusion that is driving the slanderous story, readers need to look for the difference between a direct association where two people know each other on the one hand (Harry Reid & Jack Abramoff), and an indirect association contrived by deceitful political opponents and a sloppy reporter without any evidence on the other hand (Bob Schaffer & Jack Abramoff).

So what motivated absurdicus' comment: Sophistry? Or mere confusion? To be kind to absurdicus, I'll presume it's the latter - at least for the sake of argument.

To bring the point home to absurdicus, because he worked so hard coming up with that not-so-clever dig, let's try a fictional analogy. Something more concrete and personal that he might be able to understand.

Let's pretend that there's a very bad man named Mr. Doe who stole money from victims of natural disasters (like hurricanes) and used that money to bribe politicians into voting for unfair laws that helped some of his clients at the expense of many victims. Let's also pretend that absurdicus is a politician, who went on a trip long before anyone knew that Mr. Doe would become a very bad man. The trip was paid for by The Hurricane Study Group. The purpose of the trip was for absurdicus to go inspect the rebuilding of a hurricane disaster area. Generic Law Firm, for which Mr. Doe worked, played a role in arranging a few meetings on the trip.

Maybe absurdicus knew that Mr. Doe happened to be affiliated with Generic Law Firm. Maybe he didn't. But regardless, the name Mr. Doe didn't mean anything. Almost nobody knew that Mr. Doe was a very bad man. Absurdicus never met Mr. Doe, never talked to Mr. Doe, and never took money from Mr. Doe. When absurdicus went on his trip, The Local Times found nothing wrong with what he did, noting that the trip was paid for and sponsored by The Hurricane Study Group.

Mr. Doe later did his bad deeds, and years later was found guilty and put in jail for doing them. Other politicians - we'll call them Joe Schmo, Bob Slob, and Harry Smith - were found guilty of taking Mr. Doe's bribes, then going out of their way to help his clients, and various other corrupt deeds related to his taking of money from victims of natural disasters. It just so happens that Schmo, Slob, Smith, and absurdicus all happened to belong to the same political party. (Mr. Doe also worked with members of the opposite party, even repaying favors to one of them by rewarding his top aide with a cozy job.)

Then one day, absurdicus wakes up and reads The Local Times and sees the headline: "Ties to Doe cloud absurdicus' '99 fact-finding trip." Readers have to get way down in the story to see that there is no direct connection between absurdicus and Doe, and that they never met. But the Times reporter has "associated" absurdicus with Doe.

One of absurdicus' political enemies - Terry East - is quoted in the same story saying: "Given that many Democrat members, including Joe Schmo, Bob Slob, and Harry Smith, have lost their seat or gone to prison based on their association with this criminal, it's pretty remarkable that absurdicus seems to be proud of his association with these sleazy Doe-sponsored junkets."

Meanwhile, upset by the insinuation of the Times reporter looking to gin up controversy, one of absurdicus' friends - we'll call him Don Wilson - points out that absurdicus had never met, talked to, or taken money from Mr. Doe. Wilson wants to be sure the public doesn't believe the falsehood spread by Terry East.

Now to absurdicus' second comment:

Furthermore, if Abramoff really had nothing to do with it, why would Wadhams have to defend the relationship by trying to spin that Schaffer's never met him?

To answer this question, let's go back to our imaginary story: Somebody working for absurdicus' political opponent writes: "Furthermore, if Doe really had nothing to do with it, why would Wilson have to defend the relationship by trying to spin that absurdicus never met him?"

How would absurdicus respond? By answering his own question, he either will have cured his confusion, or perhaps be forced to face his own sophistry.

What's that, absurdicus? Damned if you do, and damned if you don't? Hmmm.... It's not so much fun to be a victim of the Big Blue Lie Machine, is it?

Too Little Information, Too Many Qualifiers in Latest Schaffer-Udall Poll

Our resident gadfly has asked why we haven't posted anything on the recent poll results showing Mark Udall ahead of Bob Schaffer, 44-32.

The answer is simple. While some on the Left have been gleefully touting the numbers, we've been looking for the two C's: cross-tabs and context. Has this firm or agency polled this race before? If so, are there any observable trends? What methodology does the company use? How big was the sample? What was the demographic breakdown of the sample - by party registration, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geography, etc?

If a reader has access to any of this information, please feel free to share it with us. Otherwise, there are very few conclusions that can be drawn from this information. If the Left wants to draw sweeping conclusions from this outlying survey that shows their candidate cruising to victory, that's their prerogative by all means. But frankly, any discussion that doesn't highlight the major qualifiers isn't credible.

Then again, there's also this gem from the same poll:

Nearly two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68%), Maine (72%) and Minnesota (65%) oppose the ["Employee Free Choice Act"]. Moreover, voters in Minnesota and Colorado would be less likely to support candidates who support the EFCA. Specifically, a plurality of voters would be less likely to vote for Mark Udall (44%) and Al Franken (41%) if they support this legislation. Moreover, at least 80% of voters in all three states believe that secret ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections.

In a poll that's an outlier showing a big lead for Mark Udall, these measures of Colorado opinion against a Big Labor bill that would take away workers' rights to a secret ballot in the workplace are a bad sign for the Left. Unless they want to argue with a straight face that this polling sample is clearly skewed to the Republican side.

Of course, Udall was a co-sponsor of the EFCA in 2007, even though he had "serious reservations" about the issue (but many union financial contributions).

For more reliable information on trends in the Schaffer-Udall race, we'll wait for the next Rasmussen tracking poll to be released.

Open Memo

Dear absurdicus:

Please continue wasting your time trying to find non-existent evidence - namely, proof that any of my fellow contributors or I am paid by, or receive any form of direction from, Dick Wadhams. I wish you could see the amusement on my face.

Now back to more important things....

Name-Calling

I'm not going to waste much time on this: anonymous Mark Udall blog operative "absurdicus" - who ironically challenges the credibility of transparent bloggers who make fact-based arguments and link to their sources - has resorted to name-calling to advance some otherwise weak arguments.

At one point Bob Schaffer was being called a name five days out of every seven. That stopped when my fellow blogger "a watcher" started writing about it. Less obvious is the fact that "a watcher" worked behind the scenes to keep Republican operatives from calling Mark Udall names. Trust me, I've seen it, and I've seen it work for the most part.

So, ironically, the Udall surrogate absurdicus comes along and decides to center his arguments around name-calling against the blogger who has worked hardest and in an evenhanded way to keep the name-calling out of the Senate race.

Does the Udall campaign want to stake its case to the voters on name-calling? Does their side want to be responsible for the kind of politics that turns off independent voters? We have no problem laying absurdicus' name-calling at Mark Udall's doorstep. If Udall thinks it's in his interest that his spokesman resorts to name-calling, absurdicus will continue. If he doesn't, absurdicus will stop. Simple as that.

While we continue to publish and post comments that provide disagreement and debate, those comments left here that resort to the juvenile and distasteful tactic of name-calling will no longer be published. Let's hope Udall and his anonymous surrogate are willing to engage in a debate free of name-calling.

Theatre of the Absurd

First, let there be no mistake. We are laughing at Absurdicus. Laughing out loud. Belly laughs.

His turn around time is pretty amazing. We only wrote our Dueling with Absurdicus essay a few hours ago and already he has torn it apart. Or tried.

It seems that Mark Udall isn't really lying to the public. He is using perfectly acceptable campaign tactics that just happen to not be truthful. It's not quite the same thing. Anyone who calls his untruths lies is subject to a libel suit:

Telling a lie is quite a different thing than using campaign tactics you don't agree with. I'd love for [ Mark ] Udall to bring a libel case against you.

We stand uncorrected. Is it any wonder that the public dislikes politics and politicians when lies are "campaign tactics you don't agree with." What would Mark Udall bring a libel case for? You should go back and follow the Udall as a liar labels. Perhaps you can help him make a case.

You really shouldn't ask us to list the lies you have told:
1. The main argument that is being used against drilling on the Roan Plateau is that it is pristine, untouched country, beautiful beyond belief, and that is the argument that we have responded to. The published photographs don't show little critters. They try to show the terrain in a deceptive way. Your argument has evolved from an admission that the terrain isn't what is being described to an argument that the argument being put forward is about the critters. That is untrue. We link to the articles we reference. The best label to follow is "Roan Plateau."
2. We don't own an SUV and never have. We have a wonderful little 2000 Ford Ranger with terrible shocks and reasonable gas mileage for a truck. The wife doesn't own a SUV either, and never has. None of our children own SUV's. We don't think any of our siblings or siblings-in-law own SUV's.
3. Grandpa McGrumpy, eh? Name calling isn't lying. It is just good campaign tactics, lol.
4. A claim that misleading photographs and misleading descriptions isn't propaganda is a lie.
5. Your assertion that oil companies could match the campaign donations of Sierra Club members was a lie. Your assertion that oil companies shouldn't have the right to have a mechanism to protect their interests is offensive.
6. You have no idea what your argument is and claiming that you do is a lie. You haven't used the same argument twice. First it was that you couldn't see anything from 10,000 feet. Then it was an admission that the Roan Plateau wasn't all that pretty with an assertion that we shouldn't suck the land up like a milkshake. Now it is that Google Earth doesn't reveal all of the wonderful and unique critters. The middle argument had integrity. The same can't be said for the other two.
7. BLM is not going to allow drilling on all of the Roan Plateau, so your latest critter argument is a misrepresentation of the facts, another lie.

Is seven lies enough?

Your desire to "continue to slap [us] around" if we name the conditions under which we would like to see the discussion in the political realm is telling. We could "respect" an argument free of the kinds of lies and misrepresentations you and Mark Udall seem to love. Lies aren't really lies - they are only campaign tactics in your book. In mine, they are still lies.

This discussion is at an end. Post any comment you like. This author won't respond. You are not consistent enough or ethical enough in your arguments to make continuing worthwhile.

Dueling With Absurdicus

Readers may wonder why we would spend any of our time responding to Absurdicus instead of concentrating on the real subjects of this blog, Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer.

The answer is simple. Absurdicus is a prolific writer. He usually either speaks for Mark Udall in the blogosphere or parrots those who do. Too often he wanders away from the truth, sometimes far away. If Mark Udall wants to get elected surrounded by a bodyguard of lies and liars, the public has a right to know what is happening.

Here is his latest comment left under our Absurdicus makes a plea post:

So you're admitting you didn't read what I wrote. Wonderful.

No, you wrote two sentences. You can't doubt that we read the second sentence because we wrote a whole post around it. We read the first sentence and didn't understand it. Once you clarified your point, we wrote a whole post around what you claimed your first sentence said, something we would have happily done if you had been more clear the first time.

How is showing pictures of the Roan Plateau propaganda? Are you saying they doctored those photos and the Roan plateau doesn't really look like that?

We absolutely are saying that the scrub land character of Roan Plateau is being misrepresented and concealed by the photographs that make the news and made it into the Mark Udall commercial. That makes them propaganda in the same way that a film of any despot patting the head of a little girl is propaganda. It doesn't present the whole picture and that part that it does present is misleading as you admitted in your last argument.

Let's just take your argument to it's eventual conclusion. The Roan Plateau doesn't look all that great at 10,000 feet. Ooops, the Roan plateau doesn't look all that great from 1000 feet away. Just like judging what you look like from any large distance away, why not just not look at all and then make your argument for what the Roan Plateau look like. Let's not even get into the species of plants, animals, etc exceeds that of other lands that already have protected status. You don't even need a picture for that.

Our argument might reasonably be that every square inch of the Earth cannot be protected from human development. We elect politicians to make decisions about what should be protected and what should not. When politicians like Mark Udall and their supporters routinely lie about the nature of the land they want to protect or any other matter of importance, they cannot be trusted to help make public decisions. More importantly, they shouldn't be trusted and shouldn't be placed in a position of trust. That is what elections are about.

Your comment about the "protected status" of other places could easily be turned against those other places if the Roan Plateau is to be the measure.

Your claim that it is impossible to understand the nature of a landscape from 1,000 feet elevation is silly and intentionally misleading. Enough Americans have bought window seats on airliners to know that.

As for big campaign donations. Who are you trying to fool? Do you really put the Sierra club on the same level with Exxon Mobil and their astroturf group Americans for American Energy?

The last we heard corporations cannot make legally campaign contributions at all, and individuals are limited to making $2,300 donations per cycle. The Sierra Club can mobilize individuals to donate. Exxon cannot.

Who are you trying to fool? This isn't a high school debating class where you get to try out an argument or a piece of propaganda and discard it if it isn't convincing. That is what you are doing. If you and Mark Udall are truthful, and make truthful arguments based on accurate facts, you have a right to expect that the public will trust you.

If you and Mark Udall get caught making false arguments often enough, the public won't trust you even when you are truthful. Mark Udall doesn't seem to understand that, which is why we have a "Udall as a liar" tag. For his supporters who can't be truthful or make truthful arguments, we simply dump them into the "Big Blue Lie Machine."

Absurdicus makes a plea

Our friend Absurdicus is back with a comment on the Big Blue Lie Machine Post. It is too long to repeat here and keep to our short post format, so we will pick and choose:

Apparently my entire argument is lost because of my mistake of elevation. God forbid I would assume elevation above the earth was not normalized to elevation above ground level.

Go use Google Earth now. You will find it to be addictive. Your real mistake was to respond to what we wrote without even looking at what we were writing about. Had you done that you would have had to assume nothing.

Absurdicus is now the first individual that we know of to admit that the Roan Plateau is no Garden of Eden, no pristine untouched land worthy of saving because of its uniqueness:

Despite my basic math mistake, the argument that at 1000 feet a piece of land should be drilled on just because it doesn't look "pretty" is still my argument. Please address my point, that just because it looks ugly at any distance it should be drilled and drunk up like a milkshake.

Frankly, we didn't know that was your argument.

No one, not Bill Ritter, not John Salazar, not Ken Salazar, not the Sierra Club, not Trout Unlimited, not the Wilderness Society, not the Denver Post, not the Rocky Mountain News, and especially not Mark Udall nor any other individual or organization involved with pushing the environmental agenda has had the intellectual honesty to make that argument.

Instead, they use words and photographs intended to fool the public into believing that the land is something it is not. We never would have thought to look at the land using Google Earth but for the obviously deceptive video ad that we wrote about in Looking More Closely at The Udall Commercial - Part 3. We've driven through that part of Colorado many times and it is a lot of things, but it is not wet.

Absurdicus, we don't know how to respond to your argument. It is one that needs to be had in an honest way by the politicians who represent us, unencumbered by the false propaganda that is pumped out daily.

Instead, we have the politicians like Mark Udall and Bill Ritter as well as the newspaper editorial boards who should be demanding and engaging in an honest discussion unwilling to do so out of fear that they would lose in that environment. There can't be another reason.

The politicians spend their time pushing the false propaganda and taking big campaign donations from the organizations which generate it. The organizations collect big donations for supposedly "protecting the environment" when they are often doing no such thing.

There will never be a response to your argument from us or anyone else because none on your side, probably including you, will allow it to be held under conditions we could respect.