**Update--no liveblogging (no wireless at the venue), but Ben will have a full recap, and I'll have photos posted later).
Quick takeaways and initial impressions--Schaffer clearly had the upper hand in the debate when it came to vociferous support (the Udall side was not full), a command of the issues and the details involved in policy, and in overall demeanor. Udall's answers were forced when they weren't simply regurgitations of campaign talking points, and his rebuttals routinely eschewed marked policy differences, and instead focused on rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and the notion that "we are all Coloradans, all Americans." Udall certainly didn't appear to be comfortable in his own skin appearing before the cameras and a somewhat more open style of Q&A, with questions drawn from email submissions to 9NEWS' Adam Schrager, who moderated the debate. Schaffer was on offense from the opening remarks, with Udall trying (and failing, miserably) to play catch-up.
As for the supporters themselves (and this will be revealed in the photos and video), Schaffer's proponents were motivated and loud--"fired up and ready to go." Udall's troops showed up much later, had very little presence inside the complex or on the street, and demonstrated a lack of coordination/organization and reflected poorly on a candidate up by 10 points in the latest polls. It will be interesting to see how the MSM plays the debate today--one that favored Schaffer in all meaningful aspects and really exposed Udall as a mediocre debater and Washington insider who would rather cater to special interests and promote delays and politicking with hashed reasoning (health care is a national security issue, ya know!) rather than dealing with issues head on.
Looking forward to the next debates, Udall faces quite a challenge. The format certainly favored Schaffer, and may be one of the reasons that the Udall campaign refused to sign on to Schaffer's debate series. It is clear Udall would prefer the closed-set, no-crowd debate format with canned questions from the host. To his credit Schrager ably kept the candidates in line and on topic, and dealt with unruly Udall supporters by threatening to halt the proceedings.SP's El Presidente and Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus will represent the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 and the SchaffervUdall blog at the first debate held between former Congressman Bob Schaffer and Congressman Mark Udall for the Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Wayne Allard.
The event in Parker will mark the first time the candidates debate, and the earliest one-on- one match observers can remember.
"I think this debate is going to be great," said Schaffer's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams. "They're both very good. They're both very smart. They're both very articulate."
Wadhams and Mike Stratton, Udall's campaign adviser, said they are excited the debate will be less structured than in previous years.
"The term has sort of been prostituted. The true debate format hardly gets used anymore," Stratton said, noting most events are a forum with people asking questions.
Today's debate moderator, 9News' Adam Schrager, said both candidates are "going to have the opportunity to engage each other." There will be no time limits, but he has said he will move on if the candidates get off track or try to "commandeer" the conversation.
We'll pick up the liveblogging as the debate gets rolling.
Stay tuned to SvU for the most up-to-date coverage and analysis of the U.S. Senate matchup between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, updates on Colorado's voting population and party affiliation, and the impact of the Democratic National Convention on Colorado's most significant state-wide race.
Stay tuned to SvU for the most up-to-date coverage and analysis of the U.S. Senate matchup between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, updates on Colorado's voting population and party affiliation, and the impact of the Democratic National Convention on Colorado's most significant state-wide race.
Attacks On Schaffer Reveal Another Udall U-Turn, Schaffer's CNMI Testimony Refutes Anti-Schaffer Hit Job
It appears that Rep. Mark Udall, his campaign, and liberal/lefty water-carriers in the blogosphere forgot one thing:
Udall's record.
Face the State unearths some of Udall's votes against Internet gambling resolutions that Jack Abramoff's firms lobbied to kill, and their coincidence with donations Udall received prior to the votes. Then, after Abramoff was sent packing for fraud and corruption, Udall abruptly reversed his vote--another U-turn.
I guess the final conclusion is that there are acknowledged problems in CNMI but Washington, DC, is the absolute last place anyone should look to fix them because this government has proven time and time and time again that, in the end, at the end of the day, people around here in DC tend to make matters worse, not better. [emphases added]
To say therefore that Bob Schaffer "abetted a scheme that deprived workers of basic rights (and even their unborn children)" is more than a gross exaggeration - it is an intentional mischaracterization of a substantive, philosophical policy disagreement, taken out of the context of its time as fodder for a scandal du jour. Whether it's been perpetrated out of ignorance or willful malice, participants in an "honest debate" would look at such evidence and reassess their characterizations.
I suggest that if Alan and the Big Blue Lie Machine wanted an "honest debate" about the issue, they wouldn't ignore actual evidence and leap to a conclusion that smears someone's character, and then browbeat anyone who disagrees with that evidence-free conclusion. Because Bob Schaffer did not work to support a particular kind of heavy-handed federal reform does not mean he "enabled a medieval nightmare of abuse and exploitation on American soil...."
Those on the Left may disagree with Bob Schaffer's view (whether past or present) of how to reform CNMI, but they have not been approaching the issue in that way - they have been approaching it as an opportunity to engage in political mud-throwing. Too bad. Perhaps they could explain why workers trapped in alleged "sweatshops" that were enduring "a medieval nightmare of abuse and exploitation" did not see the situation as dire as cadres of Lefty bloggers sitting in comfortable Colorado homes and offices apparently do.
Besides building their attacks on a distorted characterization of events and conditions at CNMI, the Big Blue Lie Machine's impeachment of Bob Schaffer's character and integrity has yet to prove that any of the arrangements or indirect connections with Jack Abramoff led to a change in Schaffer's votes. They have just concluded that the votes were immoral based on a preconceived notion that has been challenged here.
Visit Schaffer v Udall for all the latest on the Schaffer-Udall Senate showdown.
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?
Slapstick Politics Exclusive: John McCain Press Conference In Denver
“We have united our party. We are now going to have to reenergize our party, and energize them for a very, very tough race this November”--Sen. John McCain
Updated and bumped . . . scroll for analysis . . .
Sen. John McCain, flanked by former Congressman Bob Beauprez, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Sen. Wayne Allard
Exclusive to the blogosphere, at least. Your humble Slapstick Politics was invited to cover the John McCain press conference today as part of the RNC's eCampaign Division outreach. Having new media incorporated into the campaign represents quite a leap forward, at least for the GOP.
Also there, Jeremy Pelzer of PolitickerCo.com, a bookmark-worthy independent online source of political news in Colorado.
The entire press conference, unedited:
Part 1:
Part 2:
If YouTube is acting up, the video is available at Sevenload: sevenload.com One of the questions from the conference will continue to follow McCain throughout the election--how can he mend fences with the conservative base who isn't particularly enthralled with their presumptive nominee, and appeal to Republicans in the Rocky Mountain West who overwhelmingly selected Romney over McCain in the primaries? And what about that old Reagan coalition--is it dead?
McCain knows that his strength--if it can be called that--lies in his projection of the "maverick" theme he has so carefully cultivated, while making sure that he also projects some semblance of acknowledgement of the concerns within his party over areas where McCain is believed to have strayed. The new term "McCain-ocrats" has been put forth as the new column of supporters, coming primarily from the Democratic ranks fed up with their destructive Clinton-Obama primary, as well as center-left leaning independents who might not usually even give the GOP candidate a look, but will now since the nominee is McCain.
With Colorado's rapidly increasing unaffiliated voting bloc soon to surpass the state's registered GOP voters, McCain's nomination could put more of that segment in play--or at the very least stem the tide of tilting Democratic that has delivered almost every recent state and federal level election in Colorado to the Democrats. Democrats need the help of independents to beat their GOP counterparts who enjoy a large voter lead, and anything that prevents a landslide split (60-40 for Democrats and higher) will at least ease those concerns.
Romney did win Colorado's GOP caucus, but the caucus itself was open to registered Republicans only. Had center-right independents, libertarians and conservative Democrats been allowed to vote, it is not clear that Romney would have received comparable results (and given McCain's 1st amendment issues with campaign finance reform, this might not have helped with some of these voters). Now, however, the nomination is settled and Republicans and conservatives alike are rallying to the GOP nominee's side, as they were at this press conference and subsequent fundraiser. Just a little over a month ago, Bob Beauprez and Sen. Wayne Allard were behind Romney during a campaign stop, arguing that he was the best candidate for Colorado and the party. This is politics, however, and as soon as the Democrats finally settle on their choice for the White House, there too will be calls for "bridging gaps" and "coming together."
So when the Democrats and the left target Senate candidate Bob Schaffer for comments he made about Sen. McCain last year that appear critical, ask them how they will handle their party's own squabbles, name-calling, and vitriol. If Schaffer can't offer his opinion and then change/modify/alter it, then it will be tough (even for Democrats) to see either Obama or Clinton offering their support for each other, once the nomination is decided. And the attacks we've seen between those two this primary season make any tension between Schaffer and McCain pale in comparison.
As for uniting the conservatives--social and fiscal conservatives and their center-right, libertarian allies--McCain has a tall order ahead. He does enjoy the benefits of receiving the nomination early, and the ability to make policy, introduce legislation, and continue (at least) a non-offense campaign that might make some of the early defectors at least open to looking at him again. He can also help himself with a strong conservative VP choice, and many have speculated that the duo seen here, McCain and Romney, might be the eventual GOP ticket. The disadvantage to a long road to November is the possibility of committing a serious gaffe or proposed policy choice that just confirms voters' suspicions about where McCain's true loyalties lie.
Bottom line, McCain is the nominee. Once voters outside of the Dems really pay attention to either Clinton or Obama, they may just be scared enough by their socialist/liberal/progressive agendas to give the senator a second look. Just look at McCain's favorability rating versus either Clinton or Obama. His favorability has been increasing, and is now holding steady in the mid-50s.
Exit question: with the Democrats so deeply embroiled in and embittered by the Clinton/Obama struggle, and McCain up on both candidates in some polls already, will the Dems be even more inclined to lash out come this fall, or watch helplessly as a small percentage of their faithful defect to McCain and potentially give him victory? In the battleground states, these margins may prove the critical difference in the electoral vote count in November.
Two 2008 Republican presidential winners arrived in Denver Thursday: John McCain, the presumptive nominee, and Mitt Romney, the overwhelming Colorado caucus winner.
Their goal: to rally Republicans behind McCain in a state where he won only 19 percent of caucusgoers and most major GOP leaders backed Romney or Rudy Giuliani.
“We have united our party,” McCain proclaimed at an afternoon press conference in the Comfort Inn in downtown Denver. “We are now going to have to reenergize our party, and energize them for a very, very tough race this November.”
Asked how he would win over Romney voters in Colorado to his side, McCain motioned towards Romney and said, “I think that he can do a much better job convincing them than I can.”
Romney made it clear how he wanted Coloradans to vote in November.
“I support (McCain) enthusiastically, endorse his campaign and hope that my friends here in Colorado are just as active in supporting him as they’ve been in supporting other great candidates in the past to make sure that we have the kind of leadership America needs at a trying time,” Romney said. “It’s so critical for us not to be talking about politics as we’re watching the Democrats do and process, but instead to be focusing on the direction of this great land.”
Sen. John McCain arrived in Denver this afternoon to make a few remarks and pick up some campaign cash as a part of his swing through the Western states that have become increasingly attractive targets for Democrats.
But before he could utter one word at the Brown Palace Hotel, Democrats launched a pre-emptive strike — getting state party chairs from Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Colorado to blast the presumed Republican presidential nominee during a conference call.
Leading the charge was Colorado Democratic Chairwoman, Pat Waak — with a little bit of swagger.
“We think John McCain is the best candidate we could be running against as Democrats,” she said.
She cited his campaign cash shortage, his getting trounced by fellow Republican Mitt Romney in Colorado’s GOP caucus by a two-to-one margin and that Democrats have registered far more voters than Republicans in the last year.
The Denver Post had a note on the protestors at McCain's fundraiser following the press conference:
About 20 protesters appeared outside the DAC Thursday afternoon to protest McCain's appearance.
They chanted "stop foreclosures" and "McSame as Bush" and "McShame" as the candidate walked through the small throng and entered the front door of the club.
U.S. Rep. Mark Udall on Monday wouldn't agree to extend to the Senate his promise of forgoing requests for special-project funding, or "earmarks," should he win the seat he's campaigning for in November.
"This is a one-year moratorium," Udall spokesman Tara Trujillo said.
A timeout is needed, she said, to review the practice.
"It's not that earmarks are bad, it's that the process for securing them is broken," Trujillo added. "He may go back to securing earmarks if some additional reforms are enacted and if we can make progress on reducing the federal deficit."
Why the flip-flopping?
If Udall wins in November, he will bank his first term and first reelection campaign in 2014 on the amount of "pork" he brings home. This phony 1-year moratorium is just a campaign ploy--and a cheap one at that.
As ToTheRight points out, "A person who thinks they’re bad for only one year, when previously he supported them and in the future he will support them, is a person who isn’t serious about earmark reform."
Sen. Webb Compares Dick Wadhams To Karl Rove, Accuses GOP Of Dirty Tricks While Dems Plan "Foot On Throat" Campaign In Colorado
“Mark’s got another little challenge here that I have some interesting memories of. There’s a fellow named Dick Wadhams who happened to manage George Allen’s campaign in ’06. I have a lot of memories of that experience. I have said many times that the Karl Rove approach to political campaigns is really detrimental to everything we are trying to do as Americans. This vicious, personal ugliness that camouflages the reality that so many on the other side have run out of ideas, is no way to run political campaigns"--Sen. James Webb (D-VA) at Colorado's Democrat Jefferson-Jackson dinner
“Mark’s got another little challenge here that I have some interesting memories of. There’s a fellow named Dick Wadhams who happened to manage George Allen’s campaign in ’06. I have a lot of memories of that experience. I have said many times that the Karl Rove approach to political campaigns is really detrimental to everything we are trying to do as Americans. This vicious, personal ugliness that camouflages the reality that so many on the other side have run out of ideas, is no way to run political campaigns.
“We found, even toward the end of the campaign that they were going into my books. I’m a novelist. You know, the duty of a novelist is to render the human condition as it really exists. They were going into my books, some of which have been taught in major universities. “Fields of Fire,” my first novel, was the most taught piece of American literature on college campuses in courses about the Vietnam War for many, many years. Taking out different parts of the novels and saying, ‘This is pornography. This is this. This is that.’ Mr. Wadhams, I do confess, I have written books. I do confess, I actually read books.
"I’ll say something else. When our election was finally decided, we knew we were going to win Tuesday night. We had to go through counting of some areas that hadn’t come in. When I stepped up on the platform on November the ninth [2006] and held my son’s boots up in the air, I literally felt like I was climbing out of a sewer. I made a comment then. I called on President Bush to stop this kind of campaigning, to put the reins on this Karl Rove-mentality and put the issues on the table. And I would renew that call tonight: ‘You lost. You lost. Clean up your act.’ We need to start facing the issues in this country. I think one of the things that we’re seeing, one of the reasons we’re seeing such incredible turnouts and such enthusiasm this year, is that the public finally has an avenue with which to express its disgust with that kind of politics.”
Two years ago, two of Colorado's richest Democratic benefactors plowed more than $7 million into Democratic candidates and causes.
Now a confidential memo to one of their advisers suggests that it would take contributions of nearly $12 million to finance independent political groups trying to influence the outcome of the presidential, U.S. Senate and 4th Congressional District races.
The money - to be spent by political groups known as 527s - would help buy TV ads, radio time and mailings, according to internal documents obtained by the Rocky Mountain News.
The memo was prepared by political consultant Dominic DelPapa and sent to Al Yates, who wears many hats, including adviser to Pat Stryker, a Fort Collins heiress. Stryker and philanthropist Tim Gill, of Denver, spent $7.46 million in 2006 to try to swing elections for Democratic candidates and causes.
In 2004, the pair, with two other Democratic donors, contributed $2 million, leading to a Democratic takeover of the state legislature.
The memo doesn't say who would contribute the money, and DelPapa wouldn't reveal any details. His memo outlines a proposed media strategy that suggests spending $5.1 million of the proposed $11.7 million budget on the Senate race alone.
Part of the Senate budget calls for a $1.9 million advertising campaign in March and April that would target Republican Bob Schaffer, who likely will face Democrat Mark Udall in the U.S. Senate race. "Define Schaffer/Foot on Throat," the campaign effort reads, according to a financial spreadsheet marked "very rough preliminary paid communications budget."
Smear tactics funded by wealthy Democrats? Just exposing the GOP. Attacking a Democrat? Just disgusting.
Either Sen. Webb is completely oblivious to the current Colorado situation or has fallen into the worst sort of projection--believing in seeing in his opponents what he knows his own side is guilty of committing. For those Democrats sitting at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, a wink and a nod may have been more appropriate, as the stakes for the Colorado Senate race in 2008 could not be any higher.
**Update--from my new post over at Schaffer v Udall: what the new numbers and a mediocre showing by Democrat Senate candidate Mark Udall in his party's preference poll on Super Tuesday mean for Colorado's much-hyped Senate raceFollowing the record turnout on Super Tuesday (complete recap here), there has been an increase in attention from the MSM to the ascent of the unaffiliated/independent bloc in Colorado, a stable Democrat segment, and the "demise" of the GOP. Last month's voter registration analysis, ahead of the Colorado caucus, demonstrated the rise in unaffiliated voters. New numbers of Colorado voter registration and affiliation have been released by the Secretary of State. Here is a comparison of voter statistics for February 2004, 2006, and 2008--as well as two handy graphs illustrating each party's registration since January 2004, as well as the overall total for the three main voting blocs in absolute terms:
Favorability ratings for Schaffer and Udall show that more than half of those surveyed remain neutral or unfamiliar with either candidate (51% for Udall, 72% for Schaffer). That is why it is difficult to discern much from the overall numbers, until the unfamiliars and neutrals begin to shrink:
Udall's favorability is higher than Schaffer's (30-12), but his unfavorables are also greater (19-15).
Allard Leads The Way In DC Conservation, "Market Will Dictate"
“You can make a difference here without putting yourself in the dark”
Global warming alarmists call for radical, life-altering action--an immediate halt to human activities--but even skeptics of anthropogenic global warming have no problem in finding ways not to be wasteful, and in the process reap reduced energy and office costs (subscribers only):
Conservation experts typically tout the little things people can do to save energy: Replace traditional lighting with compact fluorescent bulbs; install water-conserving flush valves in bathrooms; turn computers off at night.
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and his staff decided to do little things such as these a few months ago, and they’ve already seen a big payoff — a 50 percent reduction in the office’s monthly energy costs.
“There’s really no noticeable change that impacts the workday for employees, and yet we are saving energy,” said Steve Wymer, an Allard spokesman. “This was amazing for us to have done that, by taking real simple steps.” . . . For example, staffers have changed the settings on their printers in order to print on both sides of the paper; the office is buying only 100 percent recycled paper; appliances are powered down at night with many completely turned off over the weekend; and only rechargeable batteries are used. . . . Allard, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, has made it a priority to reduce his environmental impact, Wymer noted.
Aside from his work with the AOC, Allard has encouraged his staff to use mass transit through a variety of incentives, undertaken recycling initiatives, and instituted a variety of other electricity and paper conservation projects in his office.
Allard’s drive for conservation also extends to his personal life, Wymer said.
The Senator and his wife, Joan, are preparing for his upcoming 2008 retirement by building a cabin in their home state of Colorado. But in doing so, they are looking at a number of environmentally friendly options, such as installing solar panels to help power the building.
“The Senator has been a big advocate for saying, ‘The market will dictate,’” Wymer said. “The important part is just helping people understand how easy it is, and how easily you can do these things.”
Staffers in Allard’s office will closely monitor energy consumption over the next several months to see whether the cut is maintained. If so, the Senator might send out a “Dear Colleague” letter to let others know what he did to save energy — and how they could do the same.
As Wymer said: “You can make a difference here without putting yourself in the dark.”
A good analogy--you don't start a weight-loss regimen by ceasing to eat food altogether--you simply alter your intake, include more healthy options and in fact, eat more often. The radically unpalatable plans urged by some of the more vehement global warming fearmongers includes such drastic steps, and overlooks how much difference the small steps can make.
To put it simply for the moonbats--which is better, a one hour lights-out publicity stunt in a large city, or just a 1% decrease in yearly energy consumption?
I guess for those like Al Gore, form outweighs substantive change, and conservationists like Sen. Allard are leading the way, at least in the stuffy offices inside the Beltway.
And while we are on the subject of Gore (and hypocrisy in general), why not take a few moments to review the many lies in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, as ruled on by British courts.
Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer are in a close race for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard in what is shaping up to be one of the top races in next year's election, according to a poll released today by pollster Floyd Ciruli.
Ciruli said there are still 14 months to go until the election, but both campaigns are working hard to get the $30 million Ciruli believes will be spent on the race before it's over.
According to Ciruli's poll, Udall has 36 percent of voter support and Schaffer 35 percent, with 9 percent hoping someone else will join the race and 21 percent undecided.
As with all early polls, the results are both telling and inconclusive at the same time. Even some on Colorado's left acknowledge that the poll is "legit" and attribute some of the erosion in Udall's numbers to anger within his base over his MoveOn.org condemnation.
Sen. Salazar Feels Nutroots' Heat For Not Being A "MoveOn" Democrat; Update: 2010 Primary Urged
**Updated and bumped (9/28):
I think the time is NOW to start talking about finding a progressive Democrat primary candidate. Mr. Salazar can't be described as either progressive or Democrat at this point, and there is no reason to think he'll change. He's a name-only Dem. What to do, any ideas? I want to know, because I'll start working now.
Ah well, Senator. What's a few thousand more casualties, when you can enjoy the continued warm fuzzies of "bipartisanship"?
I will not vote for this man again for any office. I will not trust any candidate for President who is ignorant enough to put Salazar on the ticket. . . . One more reason to show that "centrism" isn't a principled political position but a strategy: allow other people to set the terms of the debate, then split the difference. Like I've said in other threads, by 2010 when Kiss Ass Ken is up for reelection the real question will be who will do the least damage: (a) a senior senator in the majority party who behaves in a destructive and demoralizing manner (Salazar) or (b) a junior senator from the minority party. At this point I'm thinking (b).
If the moonbats in the "MoveOn" wing of the Democratic Party had any intellectual consistency--or guts, for that matter--they would primary Sen. Salazar in 2010.
Perhaps they could convince one of the Democratic millionaires in the "Gang of Four" to become their champion.
ColoradoPols is touting a new poll showing Rep. Mark Udall leading former Rep. Bob Schaffer 45-40% as evidence of Schaffer's weak campaign and signs of Udall's ultimate victory.
At this point, more than a year out, the poll reveals nothing more than a race that is a toss-up, as the margin of error of 4% makes the poll a statistical tie, and revealing of nothing more than an electorate that has yet to catch on with either candidate very strongly. Given that both candidates have never held state-wide office, that media darling Udall has been all but anointed as the next Senator because of fundraising, or that Schaffer has been thought to have stumbled out of the gate, a 1% difference isn't all that strong for Udall.
These results match the more probable "toss-up" scenario for the Schaffer/Udall race, rather than the oft-repeated line that the seat is Udall's to lose. ColoradoPols said that these numbers can and will change (noting the movement in the Beauprez/Ritter gubernatorial race), but that Schaffer is in a poor position not starting off the race at least even.
However, with Democrats and most of the media pounding the "Colorado is turning blue" meme and that the GOP is all but toast in the '08 election cycle, the fact that Udall isn't leading by double-digits should provide a source of some doubt for the Dems. This poll also certainly can't account for the possible party nominee for President and the potential coattails (or anti-coattails) effect that might play a part in determining turnout and final vote margin.
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado said he doesn't believe that his Republican colleague who was arrested in a men's restroom is gay.
Allard, who served in the Senate since 1997, said he was "flabbergasted" to learn about the arrest of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, a three-term senator. A plainclothes officer was investigating complaints about sexual activity in the bathroom.
Allard said he's never heard anyone discuss Craig's sexuality.
"Never. Nada. Not one rumor of impropriety," he said.
The two have worked together on a number of Western issues.
"I'm flabbergasted," Allard said. "I don't believe he's gay."
Asked if it mattered if Craig were gay, Allard reiterated that he doesn't believe his colleague is gay.
Slapstick Politics (and yours truly, El Presidente) is proud to join Schaffer v Udall--the blog to watch as the former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) takes on Rep. Mark Udall (D) for the seat currently occupied by Sen. Wayne Allard (R).
We have added Schaffer v Udall to our blogroll, and will be updating the list to differentiate Colorado blogs from the rest of our great links. Be sure to add Schaffer v Udall to your blogroll or RSS feed.
Nine months after losing his bid for governor, Beauprez, 58, is still recovering from the first major setback in a career in business and politics.
For now, he seems happy and at ease. His friends and family say that's what he needs right now. But they also know he won't be happy drifting for long. . . . When he scans the political horizon, Beauprez says the wind is still blowing against his party.
Beauprez says he's not sure it's time to jump back into politics. After briefly considering a run for retiring U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard's seat, he has thrown his support to former congressman Bob Schaffer.
He won't rule out another run for Congress, though he sounds lukewarm about the prospect of a 2008 campaign. Possibilities would include trying to take back his old 7th District seat from Democrat Ed Perlmutter, or a bid for the 2nd District seat Democrat Mark Udall is giving up to run against Schaffer for Senate.
Marge Klein, former district director for Beauprez's Colorado congressional office, has spoken with him about what it would take to get him back into politics. She said the jury is still out.
"I think there would have to be some awful good polls to show that he could do a very good showing," she said. "I think it's just too soon for him to even really think too much about running again."
Things don't look so good for the GOP these days, so Beauprez would be wise to take some more time off.
However, despite our criticisms of his campaign last fall, Beauprez has a chance to continue to work behind the scenes, endorse candidates, and continue to support the party in ways he did in his days as state chair. There were many successes for the party under his leadership, and he was elected twice (and likely reelected again, had he stayed in Congress). His primary battle with Marc Holtzman exposed tears in the state's GOP, and factional rivalries and loyalties helped increase Bill Ritter's margin of victory.
The focus for the state GOP now should be cultivating new talent for future elections--though we stress that people like Beauprez should not be marginalized in any way. He brings his own brand of conservatism to the table, as most of us do, and should continue to be honored as a member of distinction within Colorado's GOP and an upstanding public servant, not simply remembered as a candidate who lost an election.
Sen. Wayne Allard hasn't done much in the way of endorsements, but Mitt Romney picked up the conservative's support in yesterday's trip to Iowa:
Allard, considered one of the more consistent conservatives in Congress, is here to tell Iowans that Romney is OK by him - on tax and budget issues, on family values issues, the whole gamut.
At Sunday night's low-key dinner, local chiropractor Sara Mesick asked Allard how Romney, who is Morman, can overcome skepticism from some evangelical Christians who have openly questioned the beliefs of his religion.
Allard said that if the campaign devolves into a fight over religion "there'd never be a Jew or you-name-it" who is elected to political office. He defended the values Romney has shown during his life and said, "If they carry your values, that's what it's all about."
This is the first time Allard has been on the campaign trail at this stage of a presidential election. He said the work isn't hard, especially for a trained veterinarian.
After all, Allard said, "When your conversation lags, you talk about their pets."
And given the recent attention paid to Romney's dog, having a veterinarian's endorsement can't hurt.
What is interesting is Allard throwing his support behind the former governor, and not Fred Thompson, his one-time colleague in the U.S. Senate. Does the Colorado Senator doubt Thompson's conservative credentials, or doubt his ability to win? It's not like he is trying to pick a candidate for his coat-tails, since he is retiring and not running for reelection.
Want to contribute? Visit our store for conservative gear for 2008! "A lot of guys yearning for adventure and romance would give their left one to be referred to in print as a man "who identified himself only as 'El Presidente.'" Nobody, for example, is ever going to refer to me as a man who "identified himself only as El Presidente." You bastard."--Drunkablog
