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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Udall Agrees to Some Debates, Still Unclear on the Lincoln-Douglas Concept

Give the Mark Udall campaign partial credit. The Democrat candidate has agreed to participate in a couple debates, reports the Rocky Mountain News.

However:

Schaffer last month proposed a series of debates modeled after the 1858 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who were campaigning for a state Senate seat in Illinois. Those debates involved one candidate speaking and the other offering rebuttal, with little if any input from moderators or an audience.

Udall objected to such a format.

"What we're looking at is debates where both of the candidates have to answer questions, not just give canned speeches," [spokeswoman Taylor] West said. [emphasis added]

Assertions, rebuttals, improvisation ... anyone who has participated in high school debate knows that the Lincoln-Douglas style has very little to do with "canned speeches." Just because the participants don't take questions from a moderator doesn't mean that there is no interactive give-and-take. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Either Taylor West is terribly ignorant or dissembling to protect Mark Udall from having to participate in the unscripted Lincoln-Douglas debate format.

So we'll keep the counter on the sidebar running for a while longer, at least until somebody in the Mark Udall campaign figures out what the Lincoln-Douglas debate style is, or can tell us why their candidate is afraid of an unscripted format.

Mark Udall Now Running from "Boulder Liberal" Tag and Debates? A Connection?

Mark Udall appears to be waffling in his relationship with the liberal city of Boulder he has represented for 9 years in Congress. Politicker's Jeremy Pelzer tried to track down the definition of exactly where Udall lives:

Udall, a U.S. Representative and the presumptive Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, is regularly listed in the press as being from Eldorado Springs. That is what his congressional and campaign offices say, too.

Udall's home, however, is in unincorporated Boulder, about halfway between Eldorado Springs and the city of Boulder.

The Udalls purchased the home, about a mile and a half outside Eldorado Springs, in 2003; before that, they lived in the city of Boulder, said Udall campaign spokesperson Taylor West.

West said Udall's mailing address lists him in Boulder.

"But if you look at it on the map, it's pretty blatantly not in Boulder - it's Eldorado Springs," West said. "This is a Schaffer campaign attempt to distract what are extremely serious issues that people in Colorado are facing. If this is how they plan to run their campaign, that's fine. But we're going to spend time addressing issues that people in Colorado care about."

A pretty testy and defensive response from Ms. West, especially when just a few months ago she insisted the "Boulder liberal" tag would not hurt her candidate, and Mark Udall himself has insisted that Boulder is his "touchstone". So does Udall have a love-hate relationship with the "Boulder liberal" tag or what?

Further, West made a valiant but disingenuous attempt to accuse the other side of causing distractions. Yet only two days remain for Mark Udall's campaign to respond to Bob Schaffer's proposal for Lincoln-Douglas style debates to address the "extremely serious issues that people in Colorado are facing." And Udall accepted the debate idea before he was against it -- a real profile in "courage".

We at SvU hope that Mark Udall changes course, follows the lead of nonpartisan news and civic organizations and joins in Bob Schaffer's proposed summer debate series designed to discuss "extremely serious issues that people in Colorado are facing," or as Schaffer put it in his official proposal: "Let's give voters in every part of the state a chance to hear directly from us on issues important to them and to our state."

Mark Udall can give voters that chance, or maybe he's afraid that Coloradans will see there really is something to the "Boulder liberal" tag.

A Tale of Two Fundraisers: Dana Perino for Bob Schaffer vs. Daily Kos for Mark Udall

One of the major necessities of political campaigns is fundraising - this is especially true for a high-profile office like U.S. Senate. Tonight Colorado residents are holding a fundraiser for Republican candidate Bob Schaffer. The guest of honor is local Colorado woman Dana Perino, who happens to work as the President's press secretary. This was enough to set off the alarm bells from the Mark Udall camp:

"Bob Schaffer's agenda is all about continuing the policies of the Bush administration that have failed our families, our national security, and our economy," said Udall's campaign spokeswoman, Taylor West.

"It's no wonder that President Bush, Dick Cheney, and now even their employees are doing everything they can to prop up his candidacy."

Schaffer's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said the Udall campaign "should be ashamed of themselves for attacking a Colorado woman who has distinguished herself as a spokeswoman for the president of the United States.

"I think she does an excellent job," Wadhams said.

There's a little political back-and-forth jousting not uncommon for this campaign, though as demonstrated here before, you do have to be very skeptical of what Taylor West says. Especially when West tries to take attention away from her own candidate's Washington insider, liberal ties.

But the more important distinction missed in the story is that Bob Schaffer raises more money from Coloradans (including myself: a small contributor), while Mark Udall is collecting more money from out-of-state liberal interest groups. Perhaps that's why Udall's fundraising events with Far Left groups like the Daily Kos don't make the local news. But they do tell a lot about the candidate.

Another Day, Another Mark Udall Lie (or two)

This is becoming tedious. There are actually two Mark Udall attempts to mislead the public today.

Mark Udall's campaign web site has the above graphic. It clearly claims that he has only raised $27,443 in grassroots contributions. If that were a graphic next to an appeal for $10, we might buy it as potentially truthful. It is next to an appeal for as much as $2,300. That makes it an attempt to deceive the public, a lie.

Of course, our favorite unofficial Mark Udall campaign spokesman opines that "a lie is a campaign tactic that someone else doesn't like" or something like that.

The second attempt to deceive the public came in the Denver Post today. It's author was our very favorite official Mark Udall spokesperson, Taylor West. We often refer to Taylor as God's gift to this blog because it is so easy to document the lies.

Today's Denver Post:

[ Mark ] 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.

And yet, Mark Udall's own congressional web site refuses to call the ban unreasonable. Indeed, when asked to sign on to a congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court that advocated overturning the ban he now claims not to have supported, he said:

If the brief stopped there, I would support it without hesitation. However, it does not stop there. Page 30 of the amicus brief includes declarations that “the District’s handgun ban is unreasonable on its face”

The lie is quite obviously documentable when the two statements are compared.

Mark Udall Finds a New Reason for Being on Both Sides of Gun Issue

Last week my colleague pointed out how Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall has struggled to take sides on the Second Amendment issue:

His stated position is that we citizens have the right to have a weapon with which to protect ourselves except when we don't, and he would side with the Bill Ritter's and the John Morse's who are too quick to say that we don't ever have that right.

Of all places, the Denver Post today picked up on the theme:

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."

Mark Udall believes in the right to keep and bear arms except when he doesn't. But here is a new reason for Udall to be on both sides of the issue: local government control.

First of all, keep in mind this is from the mouth of Taylor West, who has shown a predilection for not telling the truth.

How honest then is the excuse West offered on behalf of her boss Mark Udall? I wonder if we searched through the Boulder Congressman's voting record, would we find a consistent dedication to the principles of "self-rule and the rights of local government"? Or, much more likely, is this just a convenient and disingenuous way for Udall to avoid publicly airing his support for gun control? To say something that won't estrange him from the Washington liberal club while trying to appear that he holds mainstream Colorado values?

Though Colorado has changed in its demographics, it still retains in many ways its traditional Western character. A lot of Coloradans care deeply about their Second Amendment rights, but they also appreciate public officials who are authentic and not phony. Mark Udall hasn't been too reassuring on either front.

Another Mark Udall Staffer Lie - But What's New?

We've referred to Taylor West, Mark Udall's spokesperson as God's gift to this blog in the past, and nothing has changed. How difficult and thankless must it be to try to reinvent past Udall positions in a way that will be palatable statewide?

Today, she was reinventing the Department of Peace that Mark Udall co sponsored at the urging of some high school students. The Longmont Times-Call reports:

Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said in a Thursday interview that [ Mark ] Udall initially supported that bill “because there was a severe lack on the part of the Bush administration of using the tools of diplomacy ... as part of our overall foreign policy.”

Misuse of the "tools of diplomacy" sounds like a serious charge, a serious purpose for a Department of Peace. We looked back to see what Dennis Kucinich staffers were telling the Summit Daily News about the Department of Peace when he was pushing it and Mark Udall was still a co sponsor. Look closely to see if the proposal even mentioned diplomacy or foreign policy:

We have lived with war, violence and abuse for far too long," said Kucinich spokeswoman Denise Hughes. "By establishing a Cabinet level Department of Peace, we have the unique opportunity to confront the root cause of these evils and the ability as a society to build a safer world."

Methods would include mediation, nonviolent intervention and encouraging communities, religious groups and nongovernmental organizations to develop initiatives.

The department would be responsible for developing policies that address domestic violence, child abuse and mistreatment of the elderly, create new policies to reduce drug and alcohol abuse, protect animals from violence, develop new approaches to deal with gun-related violence and develop programs that address school violence, gangs and racial violence and violence against gays and lesbians.

Additionally, the department would take under its wing civil rights, labor law, community-based violence prevention and racial tolerance programs.

At the international level, the department would work with the U.S. Secretary of Defense and U.S. Secretary of State to reduce international conflict, train those who work to reconstruct war-torn societies, sponsor countrywide and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives and encourage international sister city programs to exchange artistic, cultural, economic, educational and faith-based values.

The department also would submit recommendations to the president regarding how the sales of arms from the United States affect peace and develop strategies for the sustainability and distribution of international funds.

The secretary of the Department of Peace also would develop a peace education curriculum to include the civil rights movement in the United States, how peace agreements have worked to stop conflict and to work with teachers to help students work on peace through reflection and conflict resolutions.

A highlight of that would be a Peace Academy, which would provide a four-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates would be required to serve five years in public service in domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution programs.

It looks to us as though a Mark Udall staffer Taylor West was telling another whopper. But as a now famous unofficial Udall spokesman recently opined, "a lie is just a campaign tactic that someone doesn't like," or something to that effect. (Yes, we are laughing because blogging is so much fun.)

Added: The article quoted extensively above was originally published on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 by the Summit Daily News (Vail, Colorado). Its title was "Udall Backs Creating Department of Peace."

Roadless "Backsliding"

Recall that yesterday we commented that Taylor West gave Politicker a laundry list of the reasons that Mark Udall just couldn't be concerned about left wing attacks on military recruiters in Berkeley and Times Square:

"Mark Udall believes Congress has much more important work to do – on everything from the lagging economy, to skyrocketing oil prices, to getting our kids covered with health care, to ending the war in Iraq in a responsible way – than micromanaging the budgets of cities for the sake of political gamesmanship," [ Taylor ] West said in the statement.

What is the biggest potential problem facing Colorado, and is it on this list? How about 1.5 million acres of dead and dying trees? If those trees catch fire, mountain homes and towns could burn, the watershed would be badly damaged, if not destroyed, tourism would die, and hunting and fishing ruined for our lifetime.

Why is that problem not on the list? Did Taylor West just forget, or is her boss, Mark Udall, telling her to ignore it? To fix the problem, to the degree that it can be fixed would require building forest roads to allow fire breaks to be built.

They are apparently doing that in Idaho but the environmentalists are none too happy:

“Back off. Just drop the whole mess,” says Craig Gehrke, regional director of The Wilderness Society in Idaho. “Just stick with the 2001 rule. This whole fight for roadless areas is needless.”

Idaho’s petition cuts out about 500,000 roadless acres, but the state promised to keep protections in place for the remainder of 9 million acres. [ Craig ] Gehrke worries wildfire provisions weaken the proposal, though, by giving the state more “wiggle room” to blaze roads.

“They’re backsliding on it,” he says.

Idaho is trying to do the smart thing, but the environmentalists on Bill Ritter's staff are trying to keep Colorado roadless and vulnerable:

A similar battle is taking place in Colorado. Environmentalists are pressing [ Bill ] Ritter, who has spoken in favor of roadless protections, to stick with the federal rule...

Colorado’s former Gov. Bill Owens, R, submitted a roadless plan that was praised for protecting most areas. Environmentalists blasted his successor, Bill Ritter, D, though, accusing him of weakening roadless protections when he decided to largely stick with that plan...

And, where is Mark Udall on this issue. He opposes roads, and collects hefty donations from roadless advocates. Care to guess why Taylor West left this Colorado centic issue off of the list of important things that Congress had to do?

Just Too Busy

Today, a bomb went off in a Times Square recruiting station. Last month, the city of Berkeley voted to oust a recruiting station.

When Mark Udall was asked why he didn't use his position in Congress to try to stop that kind of nonsense, he said, through his spokesperson: "I'm too busy."

Udall spokesperson Taylor West responded in a statement that the ad was "dishonest and intentionally misleading."

"Mark Udall believes Congress has much more important work to do – on everything from the lagging economy, to skyrocketing oil prices, to getting our kids covered with health care, to ending the war in Iraq in a responsible way – than micromanaging the budgets of cities for the sake of political gamesmanship," West said in the statement.

Thanks to Politicker.

This quote is so out of touch with Colorado values that readers should expect us to come back to it several times in the next few days.

Taylor West is God's gift to this blog. We are literally sitting here laughing as we write this stuff and contemplate the possibilities.

Washington Post Gets It Wrong - Again

Today's "The Fix" shows exactly why people on the east coast shouldn't be writing about Colorado Politics. It also demonstrates one of the several reasons that Washington is called "foggy bottom."

The Washington Post describes the Colorado race not as it is, but as it would like it to be. There is a big difference:

[ Dick ] Wadhams, a Colorado native, has been nearly perfect in the campaigns with which he has been associated in his home state. Can he keep the streak alive in Schaffer's up hill fight against Rep. Mark Udall (D)? Expect the phrase "Boulder liberal" to become a staple of Wadhams' vocabulary between now and November.

It is difficult to see how this race can be described as "up hill." There have been three polls that we know of, and all three showed a separation between the two of one percentage point. The first two showed Mark Udall to be ahead and the last one showed a slight Bob Schaffer lead.

This is still a conservative state, admittedly with a well gerrymandered left wing legislature and a chameleon governor, Bill Ritter who ran as a pro business moderate and is governing as an anti-business liberal. The Denver Post, which supported him in the 2006 election with comments designed to make him appear moderate has opined that he may be a one term governor.

In November Cillizza himself wrote: "a state that looks like it could stay in the GOP column if the right sort of race is run," so we want to know what has changed to make it "up hill."

As for whether Mark Udall can fairly be described as a "Boulder Liberal," The Fix would do well to note that Mark Udall is a self described Boulder Liberal. His campaign spokesperson, Taylor West, opined publicly that being called a Boulder Liberal wouldn't hurt him. The Denver Post recently called Mark Udall "solidly liberal" There is no evidence either that Mark Udall is running as anything but a liberal or that he can run as anything but a liberal. His friends in the msm and the liberal blogs have routinely called him "liberal," "reliably left wing/progressive," and "extremist." It has happened so often that we keep a scoreboard.

Given all of this data, it is hard to see how Dick Wadhams could avoid noting the obvious. He doesn't have to call Mark Udall a Boulder Liberal. All he has to do is restate the information here.

It is also hard to see how Chris Cillizza could have suggested that it would be wrong or inaccurate to call Mark Udall what he calls himself, a Boulder Liberal. Is this another example of the Big Blue Lie Machine in action? It wouldn't be the first time that the Washington Post was a big cog in that machine.

Schaffer Seeks to Connect Message with Voters; Udall Struggles to Find Mainstream

A story in yesterday's Longmont Times-Call highlights the positive message of the Schaffer campaign:

“We’ve just got to do a better job of articulating our message” in this year’s elections, Schaffer told more than 40 people attending a Longmont Republican Women luncheon at the Terroir restaurant on Thursday.

He suggested the GOP needs to convey that Republicans are pro-business and pro-economic growth, and that they oppose tax increases that would burden the middle class and deter capital investment.

Schaffer cautioned that it won’t be easy for Republicans in races such as his U.S. Senate contest with his likely Democratic opponent Mark Udall, an Eldorado Springs resident who represents Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District.

Schaffer, a onetime state senator and a former congressman from Colorado’s 4th District who’s now on the State Board of Education, acknowledged that he and other GOP candidates have “to hold our base together” but also will need support from non-Republican voters.

To do that, Republican office-seekers must “speak forcefully and articulately in a way that draws people back to us,” he said.

Toward the end of the article came this response:

Insofar as Schaffer’s remarks about Republicans representing mainstream Coloradans’ concerns, [Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said: “Over the next several months, voters are going to have a chance to really get to know Mark Udall and his record and his reputation and his vision for Colorado.”

Well, for one thing, Udall's record is pretty well documented here at Schaffer v Udall. Here are just a few examples:

- Voted for the largest tax increase in American history
- Voting consistently against Second Amendment rights that Coloradans enjoy
- Sponsoring a bill to create a U.S. Department of Peace
- Sponsoring a bill to open up drilling in Castro's Cuban waters while stopping any energy exploration that would benefit Coloradans
- Throwing away workers' rights to secret ballot elections to benefit union bosses
- Voting to fund the National Endowment of the Arts at the expense of forest management vital to Colorado's natural beauty and economic well-being

Yet West had the laughable audacity to make this comment in yesterday's story:

She added, “I don’t think Bob Schaffer’s record holds up in the mainstream.”

Even as political spin goes, this remark ranks as very unconvincing. I don't think Udall and his crew could identify Colorado mainstream views to save their lives.

OK, We Don't Have Enough To Do

We've noticed that Taylor West, Mark Udall's spokeswoman has slipped into name calling mode. She has called Dick Wadhams "top below-the-belt attack dog." and twice within the last week called Bob Schaffer an extremist.

Meanwhile, she is trying to claim that the Mark Udall campaign is taking the high road and the Bob Schaffer Campaign is taking the low road:

"Mark Udall will be running his campaign on ideas to move Colorado forward; with Mr. Wadhams on board, we can expect Bob Schaffer's campaign to be one of constant negative attacks, not ideas," said spokeswoman Taylor West.

Schaffer's campaign isn't calling Udall names. Mark Udall's idea is to call Schaffer three names a week as if that will win the election.

If this happens again, we're going to start the Mark Udall as a hypocrite scoreboard. We don't have enough to do.

Guess We Have To Be Nice To Dick Wadhams

Now that Dick Wadhams is working for Bob Schaffer, we have to be nice to him or he will stop our paycheck.

Oh, I forgot, we are doing this for free, so we don't have to be nice to Dick after all. Darn!

Actually, Dick Wadhams is a nice guy. The Mark Udall campaign will try to demonize him, and already has.

"Mark Udall will be running his campaign on ideas to move Colorado forward; with Mr. Wadhams on board, we can expect Bob Schaffer's campaign to be one of constant negative attacks, not ideas," said spokeswoman Taylor West.

Hmmm. Wasn't Taylor West the woman who has called Schaffer an extremist twice in the last week? That's not a "constant negative attack," or is it?

Dick Wadhams has some catching up to do with Taylor West.