Schaffer v Udall: 2008 Colorado Senate Battle

Schaffer, Udall In "Dead Heat", Tied 44-44

2008-07-24T13:10:00.005-06:00

Looks like Mark Udall is taking a u-turn in terms of support from Colorado voters.

One poll? An outlier.

Two polls in a row? A trend--possibly.

Things aren't looking to good for our favorite Boulder liberal, Mark Udall:

In the U.S. Senate race, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, the Democrat, and Republican Robert Schaffer are tied 44 - 44 percent, compared to a 48 - 38 percent Udall lead June 26.

Schaffer managed to erase (and Udall managed to lose) a ten-point deficit in under a month.

Some of the spinmeisters at ColoradoPols have been working themselves up into a lather making excuses about poll reliability, the fact its only July, etc., when only a week ago they were trumpeting the CQ politics "leans Dem" prognostication and the double-digit polls as unassailable proof of Udall's electability and Schaffer's weaknesses as a candidate.

Then we had the first debate . . .

The two newest polls showing that Schaffer has closed the gap in overall poll numbers, independents (Udall's lead shrank from 21% to just 4%), and favorability (tied at 54%).

Of course this is still July, but rumors of Schaffer's early demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated. If these two new polls represent a trend, then we can expect the race to continue to be neck-and-neck going into November, a true toss up, and one of the most watched races in the country.

And we still have more debates and the DNC to come.

Happy Birthday, Bob Schaffer!

2008-07-24T06:01:00.002-06:00

A temporary respite from the give-and-take of the campaign... Today is Bob Schaffer's 46th birthday - Happy Birthday, Bob! The recent trend in campaign polling must be considered a nice present.

At the same time, we regret our oversight for not acknowledging Mark Udall's 58th birthday last week. Wonder how many cards he got from Hollywood liberals to go along with the campaign cash?

Democrat Staffer Right on Bob Schaffer's Tail to Stalk Him at Greeley Parade

2008-07-23T20:13:00.006-06:00

Brought to you by the people who recently gave us some of the most laughable, absurd propaganda of the political season: It seems a Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) staffer had to hang really close to Bob Schaffer to stalk him with a camera at the Greeley 4th of July Parade.

I mean, that's really close. Maybe someone should buy the DSCC a zoom lens?

Then again, perhaps Mark Udall had asked for close-up footage of his opponent to study in preparation for the first campaign debate. If so, it didn't work too well. No wonder the DSCC felt impelled to try to spin the debate out of all reality into a Udall victory.

Schaffer-Udall Race Back Within Margin of Error in Latest Poll, 47-43

2008-07-22T18:00:00.006-06:00

The latest Rasmussen poll, conducted July 21, puts the Schaffer/Udall race back with the margin of error, where it had been for most of the race until the last six weeks or so. With Udall leading 47-43, and a MOE of +/-4.5%, this is essentially a tie, with just a 3 point difference (49-46) when "leaners" are factored in.

More importantly for Schaffer is the favorability/unfavorability rating, with both candidates at 54% (Schaffer has a 2% lead in the "very favorable" category). Three months of dedicated partisan attacks on Schaffer appear to have given Udall a temporary "bump" in the polls, but haven't appeared to hurt Schaffer's ratings otherwise, and with the poll conducted July 21, could have factored in a full week of reports in the blogosphere and even the MSM that favored Schaffer over Udall in the first debate of the campaign season. Many partisan Dems, including the DSCC, have tried to spin the first debate as at best a Udall victory, and at worst a draw. They claim that one of Schaffer's best salvos of the debate was nothing more than misinformation, and that this hurts Schaffer's credibility.

Unfortunately for Udall, it was his debate rhetoric about "working together" that fell flat on its face.

This new poll comes on the heels of the CQ Politics reassignment of the race to "leans Democratic" from "no clear favorite"--a "lagging indicator" of recent polls or a general reflection of a switch in expected outcome (SvU suspects the former)? This conflicts with the Cook Political Report out last week that still puts the race as a "toss up."

July polls are July polls. This election year that will be even more the case, especially with the DNC in Udall's back yard. Negative backlash from the convention, due to the events themselves (Hillary party crashing, Obama flub, etc.) or outside in the streets, could damage the Udall move to the center and solidify the "liberal" appellation that he has correctly been tagged with (Boulder liberal, Colorado liberal). He needs a virtually flawless DNC to escape with his independent/unaffiliated support undamaged.

What does Schaffer need? Continued debate success, in both style (clear winner last week) and substance (each side claimed victory). One thing is clear, Schaffer's supporters were clearly more fired up than Udall's, which may be a product of Udall's recent lead (confident supporters feel less afraid of loss). An increase in ad buys and presence in the media (not merely Udall and surrogate attack ads) will increase his visibility, and more highlights from future debates should play well in charging up Republicans seeking down-ticket rally points, since Sen. John McCain won't provide much in the way of coattails. Gas prices stalled at record levels and the expected vote over the Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling in October--the Executive ban having been lifted by President Bush last Monday--could cripple a Udall juggernaut.

Exit questions--with a smidge more than 3 months to go, what do you think of the polls? Will the DNC damage Udall? Can Schaffer reverse the GOP's recent electoral woes?

**Update--a report from a commenter at SquareState doesn't bode well for Udall, with only "lukewarm" support for the Democrat in Boulder

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

2008-07-22T06:14:00.008-06:00

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.

DSCC Tries the Ridiculous "Big Lie" to Spin Mark Udall out of His Debate Disaster

2008-07-21T21:54:00.005-06:00

Here's a new dispatch from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Try to read it out loud without laughing - I still can't do it:

In the first debate between Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall and far-right Republican Bob Schaffer, Udall came away the clear winner. Udall presented a clear plan for moving the country forward after years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, national security, and our energy policy.

Sorry, I should have warned you not to read that with food or drink in your mouth. Hope it didn't cause any unfortunate damage to your computer.

Anyone who actually watched last Monday's debate recognizes this as some of the most outrageous and absurd propaganda of the season. "Udall came away the clear winner"? Yes, if by winning the debate you mean "not tripping and falling on your face in front of hundreds of people." And Mark Udall "presented a clear plan"? What clear plan was that ... "working together"?

Hey, these guys at the DSCC ... it's their job to put a little spin on the campaigns. But sometimes they have to make themselves look like royal fools to do it - this is one of those instances for the DSCC. Hope they're getting paid well to publish this unbelievable drivel.

Add Possible Conflict of Interest to Mark Udall's List of Energy-Related Problems

2008-07-21T08:40:00.003-06:00

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall’s plans to encourage the use of renewable energy could end up benefiting several of the congressman’s investments, according to a review of his recent financial disclosure forms.

Udall’s May 22 disclosure to the Senate Ethics Committee reveals he has at least $31,000 invested in mutual funds and IRAs backed by clean-energy investments.

These investments could benefit from policies Udall has announced his support for both on the campaign trail and during his time in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The top holdings for Powershares WilderHill Clean Energy, in which Udall has invested from $16,000 to $45,000, include First Solar Inc., an Arizona-based firm developing solar-energy technology.

Udall has purchased $15,000 to $50,000 worth of shares in the Winsloe Green Growth mutual fund, which also has invested in the solar-technology firm.

Udall purchased shares in both investments Nov. 13, according to his financial disclosure.

Mark Udall's relations in the energy world have already evidenced public hypocrisy and possible coordinated smear attacks against his opponent. What abouta little conflict of interest to top it all off?

If this story were about Bob Schaffer, it would be a blazing headline in the Denver papers. Will the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News dig deeper into Mark Udall's energy-based hypocrisy and apparently conflicted interests?

Even Mark Udall's Weak Debate Rhetoric on "Working Together" is Pure Fantasy

2008-07-19T07:52:00.004-06:00

Rocky Mountain Right has outdone itself this time with a stinging 30-second video:

How bad was Mark Udall's Monday debate performance? Even his empty platitudes were based in fantasy. Udall voted along party lines 96 percent of the time. Bob Schaffer voted along party lines 84 percent of the time.

Who is more independent and non-partisan? Despite Mark Udall's weak rhetoric, the facts don't lie.

Mark Udall Confronted about Cynical Sponsorship of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

2008-07-18T08:03:00.004-06:00

Via the Labor Pains blog, Coloradans for Employee Freedom caught up with Boulder liberal Mark Udall at what appears to be the July 4 Greeley Stampede parade:

EFCA = Employee Free Choice Act. Mark Udall seems to have forgotten his cynical sponsorship of EFCA, despite (as Labor Pains points out) having taken more than $1 million from Big Labor interests. Maybe because Udall realizes how dreadfully unpopular the anti-secret ballot measure is.

Mark Udall: Blindsided again.

Colorado Senate Battle Remains A Toss Up

2008-07-17T23:29:00.001-06:00

The Cook Political Report updated its list of Senate seats from May, and Colorado's battle between Mark Udall (D-Boulder Liberal) and Bob Schaffer remains a toss up, despite early leads in the polls for Udall.

Bob Schaffer Connecting with Voters During His Tour of Southern Colorado

2008-07-17T07:44:00.003-06:00

Following the momentum from his Monday debate victory, Bob Schaffer has taken to the road. Schaffer is touring southern Colorado with his message of energy independence to contrast with Mark Udall's obstructionism.

The Pueblo Chieftain highlights Bob Schaffer's views on Pinon Canyon but offers little new. Traveling with Schaffer, Lynn Bartels of the Rocky Mountain News recounts day two of the trip, as Schaffer interacts with voters in Pueblo, Westcliffe, and Salida, including this aw-shucks anecdote:

Hillside resident Fred Berry took a Schaffer for Senate T-shirt provided by the candidate’s campaign.

"I'm getting work clothes for my wife," the 69-year-old Custer County rancher joked. "When she’s out baling (hay) she can be electioneering for Schaffer."

Of course, the advantage of grassroots energy in Schaffer's campaign was most visible recently at the turnout and enthusiasm of the debate crowd.

Mark Udall Blindsided on Iraq Resolution - No Dept. of Peace to the Rescue

2008-07-16T08:48:00.004-06:00

Courtesy of Rocky Mountain Right, the blindside on Mark Udall from Monday's debate:

The only question is what hopes Mark Udall had for his Department of Peace to govern our Iraq policy and to protect us from other terrorist dangers.

Mark Udall Campaign Drunken Sailor Spending Strategy May Be Cause for Regret

2008-07-16T08:37:00.004-06:00

For two straight quarters, the Mark Udall campaign reports that it's spending like a drunken sailor:

Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams argued, however, that Udall is burning through money at an unsustainable rate, noting he spent almost $300,000 more than he raised from April through June. The $2 million cash-on-hand advantage the Democrat held over the former Fort Collins congressman in April has been cut almost in half by Schaffer, he said.

"The only thing that matters from here to the election is how much money you have in the bank, how many more bullets you have left to shoot," Wadhams said. "Even though he had a very good fundraising quarter, when you spend $2.3 million, it negates everything."

Back in April, we speculated about where the money was going:

Patent leather office chairs or golden bathroom fixtures at campaign headquarters? Solar-powered Blackberries? Or maybe it's being wasted on high-paid online staffers? Udall's friend Governor Bill Ritter probably wishes some of that money could be shared to cover his outstanding campaign debts.

This time some of the money was spent on buying television ads - which along with 527 smear ads, has helped to forge a small advantage for Mark Udall. But this rapid depletion of funds - combined with Bob Schaffer's more cost-effective strategy - may later be a source of regret for the Boulder liberal.

After all, there are more painful debate experiences to come.

Adam Schrager Analyzes Schaffer/Udall Debate Rhetoric

2008-07-16T02:04:00.002-06:00

At 9NEWS.com.

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

2008-07-15T18:27:00.004-06:00

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

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

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

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

Mark Udall Healthcare Quips

2008-07-15T08:39:00.003-06:00

A couple examples from the end of yesterday's debate help to highlight why Mark Udall isn't exactly in the same league as Barack Obama when it comes to drawing and inspiring a crowd.

Here are two Mark Udall quotes in response to a question about health care reform (access to the full 9News video - see Part 3 - is here):

"We have 800,000 people here in Colorado who don't have healthcare. Many of them feel like they're an illness away from being bankrupt. They don't know how they're going to cover their premiums for the next month. This isn't acceptable."

Those uninsurance premiums are really high, eh?

"Because this isn't only about our economy, it's about our national security. To win the war on terror, we have to have every American as healthy as possible. By working together we can do that."

Congress is going to work together to make us all healthy enough to win the war on terrorism? Um, okay....

And they say that health care is a stronger suit for Democrats.

Missing the Point of Bob Schaffer's Powerful Zing on Mark Udall's Iraq Record

2008-07-15T06:38:00.002-06:00

The most striking blow in today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall came when 9News moderator Adam Schrager read a question submitted by a viewer: Why are we in Iraq, and how will we know when we we've won the war?

Bob Schaffer answered the first part of the question by reading from a Congressional resolution that included many of the charges against Saddam Hussein's regime - including his chemical weapons program, his state sponsorship of terrorism, and his treatment of the Kurds. A campaign press release said:

Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd.

Mark Udall's resolution called for more diplomatic action, but clearly left the military option on the table.

The point of this elucidating moment? That even in opposing the war, Udall clearly acknowledged the reasons that 296 other Congressmen (including 81 Democrats) reasonably relied upon to make their judgment for authorizing military force. And as Schaffer himself explained in the debate, those who voted to support the war didn't want to telegraph our nation's intentions to the regime that had perpetrated the things highlighted in the resolution.

The disagreement was not over the facts in evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq. But Schaffer's question to the audience demonstrated that those supporting Mark Udall fail to recognize the pertinent facts before the nation in Congress and 2002 that were weighed as we debated whether or not to depose the Saddam Hussein tyranny. And those facts remain, even if some conveniently seem to have forgotten them.

Over at the Dead Governors blog, one paid Lefty propagandist thought he caught Bob Schaffer in a gotcha moment - claiming that the Republican candidate "just makes stuff up." The propagandist may have a legitimate disagreement about a foreign policy decision, but he utterly missed the point. Still the Big Blue Lie Machine tries to churn out distractions to hide their candidate's pathetic showing on the debate stage today.

Well, for the sake of an honest debate, I suggest the paid Lefty propagandist give a more careful viewing of the video. But the outcome might just be too painful to watch.

For open-minded independent voters, the debate is a worthwhile watch. They can decide for themselves.

Schaffer v Udall Debate Photos

2008-07-15T00:18:00.012-06:00

A popular sign at today's debate.

Schaffer supporters mill about, waiting for the doors to open.

All's quiet at the Udall table--with less than an hour to go, things aren't looking to good for the Boulder liberal (the union buses hadn't arrived yet).

Where, oh where, are the Udall folks at?

Fired up, ready to go.

Signs of support.

Adam Schrager poses a question to Udall.

Schaffer argues his point while Udall looks on.

Udall makes his rebuttal.

Bob Schaffer's Clear Debate Victory over Mark Udall Sways Uncommitted Voter

2008-07-14T20:49:00.006-06:00

The Denver Post has a decent story about today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, but most interesting is this comment left by an attendee at today's debate:

I attended the debate as a guest of the South East Business Partnership (SEBP). I sat two rows from the speakers and saw everything live.

While I was leaning toward Udall for his record on aerospace, I couldn't believe his performance in the debate. A friend of mine (and staunch Udall advocate) was horrified and joked we should have sat in the back so leaving was an option. He was terribly concerned for his candidate following the dbate.

If I heard Udall say "We are all Americans" once more than the 32 times I counted I would have considered driving a srewdriver into my tempel to stop the pain.

This Schaffer guy wiped the floor with Udall who looked like a deer in the headlights. On enegry and Iraq Udall used the famous I voted for it before I voted against it - defense many times but using different words.

Schaffer dominated the debate and won handedly. Any unbiased observor would easily come to this conclusion. I was just sad to see your coverage so very different from the actual event I witnessed. Regardless of who the reporter supports he should report the truth.

It was like watching a wrestler sitting on top of his opponent in every round and reading an account in the paper that is was an even fight.

I want to do more research on Schaffer before saying I support him but based on the debate - the winner was much more clear than your newspaper reported. [emphases added]

Any assessment that I could make showing that Bob Schaffer won the debate hands down could not be so persuasive. A diehard Lefty Mark Udall supporter who watched the debate disagreed with one of Schaffer's main points of attack but had to admit his candidate's performance was "platitudinous."

Visuals from today's debate are available both at Rocky Mountain Right and Face The State. 9News has the complete video: Those who wish to watch the debate the old-fashioned way can tune in Sunday, July 20, at 10:30 AM, on My20, Comcast Channel 3.

Too bad for Mark Udall that this debate won't be the last one.

Schaffer v Udall Debate--Update, Quick First Impressions

2008-07-14T12:49:00.004-06:00

**Update--no liveblogging (no wireless at the venue), but Ben will have a full recap, and I'll have photos/video 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.

RMN:

Painted into a corner by weeks of attack ads, Bob Schaffer came out swinging this morning in the first U.S. Senate debate of the season, accusing Mark Udall of flip-flopping and of being responsible for high gas prices.

Udall, a Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs, rarely took the bait from his Republican opponent, responding most often that Congress must work together rather than continue its partisan bickering.

The topics of the debate, which drew a crowd of about 800 to the Wildlife Experience, ranged from energy to the Iraq war to the proposed expansion of Piñon Canyon military training area. But one theme seemed to emerge throughout the morning: Schaffer accusing Udall of being unwilling to make a decision and Udall responding that he prefers finding consensus rather than rushing into a bad decision.

Emblematic of this was a question over whether Colorado needs to extract oil shale from the ground. Udall said that while research is under way to determine the potential of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."

Schaffer responded: "This is part of the reason I'm running for Congress.... I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence."

Oil Shale: Mark Udall's Obstructionism vs. Bob Schaffer's Comprehensive Approach

2008-07-14T06:19:00.008-06:00

Sunday's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel features dueling columns between U.S. Senate candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall on the issue of energy production and the potential of western Colorado oil shale, in particular. A careful look at the two articles highlights a vital contrast

Mark Udall's piece is full of warnings about irresponsible oil shale development, but leaves only the vaguest of hints of what he thinks needs to be done in moving forward.

In one place, Mark Udall writes:

Put plain and simple: We still don’t really know how to develop oil shale in a way that makes economic sense and in a way that protects scarce water resources.

And if we don’t want to send the Western Slope into another economic crash, we’d better figure that out before we try to kick-start another crash program.

Classic doublespeak. It will be harder for oil shale extraction to make "economic sense" when environmental interests, to whom Mark Udall is beholden, press for additional unreasonable regulations that will make the already challenging process costlier. Udall also has advocated a one-year moratorium on oil shale recovery.

The fact that Mark Udall neglected to mention Royal Dutch Shell's Mahogany Ridge Project may speak louder than anything he actually wrote:

But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the
oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to the point where the oil leaches from the rock.

Recognizing this reality and others,
Bob Schaffer's piece is full of faith in American ingenuity. His approach to energy policy is comprehensive:

We should offer more incentives to grow a more robust renewable energy sector. We should hold out incentives for unconventional technologies such as oil-shale, oil sands and others. We should expand other clean-energy opportunities such as nuclear and geothermal.

Bob Schaffer's strategy for oil shale is reasonable and balanced. Among other things, he recognizes that energy companies have made dramatic technological advancements in oil shale extraction that respect the environment.

As MSNBC has reported, even Democrat Governor Bill Ritter has spoken out clearly about the promised benefits of oil shale extraction: "If we go forward with oil shale, it could be the biggest commercial development in the history of the state of Colorado."

Despite using the rhetoric of responsibility, Mark Udall's energy obstructionism represents irresponsible behavior. Bob Schaffer's plan respects the environment but gives incentive to speed a process that can give a huge boost to America's energy supply and a major boon to Colorado's economy.

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

2008-07-13T21:42:00.004-06:00

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?

Official Documents Refute Naked Partisan Attack against Bob Schaffer

2008-07-12T13:22:00.005-06:00

This week the Grand Junction Sentinel ran with a story that made it look like Bob Schaffer was engaged in wrongdoing when he traveled in his role as an energy executive to discuss a development deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Reporter Mike Saccone elaborates in a blog post here.

As more facts have come forward in this case, there appears to be no wrongdoing whatsoever by Bob Schaffer or his former employer, Aspect Energy. In particular, the Denver Post's Michael Riley - clearly no fan of Schaffer - did a little more digging. Here's what he says about evidence he found that contradicts the allegations of wrongdoing:

Yet the Oversight Committee documents present a very different picture. They include internal Hunt memos describing meetings with U.S. officials in which they talked about the potential leases with no mention of any warning that they were a bad idea. They also include an e-mail from a State Department official in Iraq to Hunt Oil vice president Jeanne Phillips, in which the U.S. official chats amicably about the Kurdish deal and flags a new opportunity the company might be interested in: "Anything I can do from here to give info or whatever, let me know," it reads.

Those documents match what Schaffer says about Aspect's own dealings as the company was arranging the Kurdish lease - that they received no discouragement from U.S. officials in their efforts. It is still unclear exactly what the State Department said to Aspect executives as they worked to line up the lease in 2006, if anything.

More light is shed in today's Rocky Mountain News:

But both Wadhams and Alex Cranberg, chairman of Aspect, disagree that the State Department had a clear policy against such contracts. Cranberg said his company received government approval to visit the region.

"We were not asked by the State Department not to do this deal," he said in an e-mail.

Unfortunately, Mike Saccone - perhaps trying to give legs to the story he broke - misinterprets what Cranberg's message means, trying to suggest that "Cranberg said there was no communication between Aspect Energy and the State Department." But that's not what Bob Schaffer's former boss said. According to Cranberg, government officials gave his company no reason to believe they shouldn't move forward.

If Saccone could make the case that Aspect Energy had no communication with State Department officials, then he might be able to give traction to the original argument. But if State Department officials told Aspect Energy there was no problem, then Schaffer did nothing wrong. And the charge against the U.S. Senate candidate looks like nothing more than a naked partisan political attack.

Interestingly, Mike Riley appears to have correctly pinned the blame on the State Department for what, at best, appears to be sending mixed messages (though he understates its significance):

Documents suggest that the situation was much less clear cut. They show that State Department officials in Iraq may even have encouraged some American oil companies in their efforts to secure those leases even as it was publicly describing them as problematic. To the extent that's true, Schaffer and Aspect may be much less culpable than Democratic critics suggest and it may be the State Department that is most to blame for playing the diplomatic game of saying one thing in public and another in private.

Yet two critics with Left-leaning records and attachments to Democrat candidates have attempted to come forward allegedly as unbiased experts to perpetuate the myth of wrongdoing.

Who are these two? Lawrence Korb performed the bidding of Congressional Democrats to attack the credibility of General David Petraeus back in 2007. Democrats and Korb since have been left with egg on their face, after Petraeus has led a successful military strategy in Iraq and quashed their defeatist agenda.

Rand Beers has been a senior foreign policy adviser to Democrat Presidential candidates John Kerry and Barack Obama. Beers recently went out of his way to attack John McCain for his honorable military service, in particular the suffering he went through as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam.

A couple of Democrat operatives are trying to keep the story alive for Mark Udall's sake - to score political points. But the problem here very much seems to be with officials in the U.S. State Department. Mike Saccone should do the decent thing and publish a follow-up story bringing the new, relevant information to light - and helping to expose the agendas of those behind the original attack.

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

2008-07-11T07:42:00.003-06:00

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.

Latest Silly Denver Post "Expose" Reminder of Need for Serious Debate to Discuss

2008-07-10T08:56:00.004-06:00

The Denver Post's Michael Riley - whose ongoing assignment seems to be dredging up the most nonsensical attacks against Bob Schaffer - makes the stunning discovery that the U.S. Senate candidate served on the board of an online university with a classical education curriculum, that served as "an academic haven for conservatives." Um ... okay.

Someone will have to tell me why this is a story, except that the Post is blind to its own narrow liberal bias and is not familiar with a traditional classical education curriculum.

Bring on that debate so we can talk about the substance of the campaign.