Udall Has a Big Problem
| By Mike Collins - Sep 13th, 2007 at 12:44 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Veterans for Progress |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Peace & Social Justice, Environment / Conservation, Effective & Ethical Government
Categories: Peace & Social Justice, Environment / Conservation, Effective & Ethical Government
Went to the Townhall and I hate to say this but Mark Udall has a huge problem. One thing that keeps coming up from his apologists, "It's Mark or Schaffer, take it or leave it." Problem is the left wing of the Democratic Party finds Udall even more unattractive than Ken Salazar and worse than that and thanks very much to the Colorado Democratic Party king makers, there has been a huge reduction in "Yellow Dog Democrats" after they got burned so badly by Ken "Nighthorse Campbell without a pony tail" Salazar. Without the yellow dogs and the real Democrats, Udall can't win and I don't think the real Democrats will vote for Udall, I really don't, he stinks that bad and it will be impossible for them to put that much lipstick on one pig. Even worse, given the choice between Salazar, Udall and Schaffer, most would definitely pick Schaffer because he is so much smarter than both of them and a tad bit more entertaining. If I had pull with the Democrats, I'd tell them you had better pick a winner because party loyalty just ain't what it used to be and they are pretty fed up with stupid, mediocre, spineless and a frat boy sense of entitlement. As far as blackmailing the state regarding a senate majority, we will pick up seats in VA, NE and MN and electing Schaffer would be no less embarrassing than having Allard for the last 12 years. Oh and by the way for those that like to point out Udall's environmental prowess, how many wind turbines are in Boulder County? Most shocking of all tonight on a question about CAFE standards, Mark seemed fairly proud of some ridiculously low increase for automobiles by the year 2020 with absolutely no mention of SUV's or trucks. While touting these ridiculous figures, he made mention that using the military to secure the oil supply line to keep the cars running and killing the planet was acceptable behavior. Had I had a chance, my question to him would have been something like- wouldn't walking be preferable to killing Arab civilians, not you, I mean, but the little people.
Comments are closed for this post.
If you really feel there's a genuine alternative to Mark Udall, then put him or her up to run for the Senate, against Udall and Schaffer and help that person to raise enough money to make a credible challenge either in the primary or as a member from a third party. If you're not willing to do that and just want to keep attacking Udall, then we're going to get the Colorado Senate equivalent of the 2000 race between Bush and Gore. I think we all now realize there are huge differences between those two folks.
If you're not willing to do that, then get the fuck out of mine and Mark's way just because you don't agree with his strategy to end the war in Iraq.
BTW, telling the entire American population to start walking may seem like a perfectly valid solution to you in Boulder, but I don't think it's going to go over so well for the rest of Colorado and the rest of the county. When you have a candidate, why don't you let them try that line in their first speech and see how far they get.
As one said, "(I'm) a life-long Democrat who's helped to draft platforms and worked endless hours for candidates -- as well as doing civil disobedience to try to stop the war -- become a member of the Green Party! Let's all get out and support the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and continue to hold our elected officials responsible."
You want to talk about "not doing anything!" or any other language these people use? Becuase it's what pisses me off, since they are using ultimatums, the EXACT same type of ultimatums that Republicans and BushCo. use to continue the war; "it our way or no way." I don't buy that. That's not Democratic, that's not liberal, that's not progressive, that's fanatical on all counts.
Back in 2005 I had the opportunity to ask Mark Udall about the privatization of our military with duties, responsibilities, and contracts going to the likes of halliburton, its subsideraries but especially "private security" firms like Custer battle and Blackwater. I pointed out to Udall that these organizations payed their employees more than our miloitary personell make - often work side by side with them - the process undermines the incentive to have personell stay in our military, and also creates a level of un accountability.
Udall's response was appalling - keep in mind this was in colorado springs during a democratic party reorganization event at which Udall was the keynote speaker at a breakfast there. He said he was not aware of those issues (keep in mind he is on a militay committee) and then went on to cite a glider trainign program at the Air force academy which was working welland actiually saved dollars - again I was appalled at his ignorance and inability to give a satisfactory answer to this question.
True Udall voted against the original authorization of the invasion of Iraq - but now his line is we broke it - we must stay til there is stability - which is utter crap -I usually do not use explitives but the trend already exists in this string - resting on one's past is not what I call responsibility or standing up to what should be obvious injustices.
or me the biggest disapointment in Udall and other democrats is there refusal to hold george Bush accountable for his crimes and corruption - it si a disgrace and in my view by not attempting to expose his crimes which includethe order to use torture and abuse - lying to Congress, deep involvement with Jack abranoff - and more - to me this failure to impeach orotherwise hold Bush accountable is complicity with those actions.
It is cowardice.
As for getting out of Mark and i's way - please save it - as for if you cannot raise themoney again - money does not make tings right -
I myself am considering challenging Udall for the democratic nomination due to what I consider Udall's lack of credibility.
I will not take money and I will certainly not betray the Colorado democratic Platform by caving in to george Bush and republican crime.
As for the person who said Schaffer is more intelligent = please use some intelligence - Little Bob is not very bright - nor would he be good for Colorado or the U.S. - look at his record - Bob has no credibility or much intelligence.
I'm really not sure how to say we can do better without offending the fan club. I'm really not sure how to explain the necessity of doing better, the necessity for strong leadership has never been more critical. Look at it in terms of Colorado population and don't think of it in terms of beating Schaffer, think in terms of one in a million. Is Mark Udall that good, that noble, that exceptional, that much of a visionary. Any criticism I have for him I am most reluctant to use, it is very personal and I can assure you that Republicans will find him glass jawed in the arena outside of his district, they will pound him and he's not that good on his feet as evidenced at the town hall. To be a liberal, be elected to a district that safe and not shake the very mountains that are located there is beyond disappointing. I had made a promise to someone that I would give Mark a look over and do my best to get involved and help out. Everything you say about his responsibilies regarding Armed Services oversight was crucial to me as well, if this war was about nothing else but war profiteering, it would be enough to hang all of those complicit. Armed Services is where the money is at and if you lay down with dogs you are bound to wake up with fleas. In the face of great evil, silence is complicity. The bottom line, after electing Ken Salazar, we need that one in a million.
P.S. CD 1 has the same problem as CD 2. We who live in CD's with no hope look for leadership elsewhere, we are very thankful for Ed Perlmutter. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
But now you have relegated yourself to obscurity with these personal attacks and insane tirades.
The fact is that Mark Udall is on your side, and if you're going to behave like this you deserve the irrelevance you have earned.
As for Bob, he's in top-down mode and still supports the Prez on Iraq: "Schaffer charged during a speech at a Boulder County Republican picnic in Longmont last month that at least some congressional Democratic leaders’ track records include 'deliberate efforts to surrender in Iraq' and a 'strategy of weakness.'"
And "entertaining"? I don't want any more entertainment in my politicians. They have a job to do.
What people don't seem to get is that cutting off funding will not end the war. Bush will leave out troops over there to languish without bullets and food before he brings them home. Mark knows this. He fully gets the degree to which Bush is like a horse running into a burning building. Extremists like these Green Party people either don't get it or they are willfully deceiving people when they suggest that cutting off funds will end the war.
Look at Mark's record. He is unparalleled when it comes to civil liberties, the environment, and yes, peace. He voted against the war. He cosponsored Kucinich's Dept. of Peace bill. He voted against FISA expansion as well as the PATRIOT ACT. He is the primary House sponsor of the bill to prevent war with Iran.
Mike Collins, Claire Ryder and their group are either horribly confused about Mark or they are lying. After camping out in Mark's office for three weeks, they should have had plenty of time to learn Mark's record. I say it's the latter--they are lying to promote their own group. Don't get hooked into their propaganda.
I personally didn't mention that in the original post, although after reading all of the responses, it might give one that impression.
"Mike Collins, Claire Ryder and their group are either horribly confused about Mark or they are lying. After camping out in Mark's office for three weeks, they should have had plenty of time to learn Mark's record. I say it's the latter--they are lying to promote their own group. Don't get hooked into their propaganda. "
I am not a member of a group that includes Claire, although I admire Claire for her courage as well as convictions, some of her tactics have been questionable, but what the heck, you can't accuse her of war profiteering. Stating emphatically that I have ever been to Udall's office makes you the liar. Speaking of mindset, groupies like you remind me of the Bertrand Russell quote, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of self doubt. " You leave so little room for doubt.
If you and Claire are members of some group, I want to join.
I've been in dialogue with Dittohead and johne on another forum. I pointed out the fallacy of the "Bush will leave them to die in the desert if the funding is cut off" argument. Namely, that he would be faced with a full-blown Generals' Revolt. Some of them would probably welcome the opportunity to begin ignoring orders from the Chickenhawk-in- Chief.
Also, they keep falling back on their smug suggestion that if we are unhappy with the Anointed One, we should find an alternative candidate. As I recall, we did exactly that the last time a Senate seat was vacant.
There was, in fact, a wonderful candidate. His name was Mike Miles, a natural leader. He WON the straw poll at the State Convention and brought tears to the eyes of the crowd with his passion and conviction. Of course, that scared the bejesus out of the party machinery, which immediately put all its money on Ken "Nighthorse" Salazar.
Hell, even if we dug up Tom Jefferson himself he couldn't get nominated by this crowd. "Not electable. Too old."
Frank
What country are we in again?
Udall is in the middle of the Democratic caucus in the House, he is neither a member of the Congressional Progressive Congress nor a Blue Dog Democrat.
Salazar is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress and is a proud Blue Dog (as is his brother in the House).
Shaffer is no RINO; he is in the middle to conservative side of the Republican caucus: "Schaffer’s voting behavior also shows that he lined up with his party on about nine of every 10 votes that divided most House Republicans from most Democrats — which Congressional Quarterly has long described as “party unity” votes. Schaffer’s party unity scores ranged from a low of 89 percent in 1998 to a high of 94 percent in 2002."
All Democrats who don't consider themselves to be conservative Democrats have far more to hope for in Udall than they did in Salazar. We knew that when we supported Salazar, but supported Salazar anyway, because in the choice of evils that is political reality, he was a better choice than Pete Coors, and still is, even though in hindsight, Salazar is probably more conservative than his Democratic supporter expected that he would be.
"With a wave of his hand Hallam stilled the tumult.
"Let it be understood now and hereafter, that this is to be no joint debate," he said in that high-pitched shrill voice of his. "My friends have arranged for the use of this building and I intend to be the only speaker. But it is a tenet of our faith that in a Democratic gathering no man who calls himself a Democrat shall be denied the right to be heard. If the gentleman will be content to ask his question, whatever it is, and abide by my answer to it, I am willing that he should speak."
"That suits me," clarioned the interrupter. "My question is this: Didn't you say at the Louisville convention not four weeks ago that if the Democrats of Kentucky, in convention assembled, nominated a yaller dog for governor you would vote for him?"
"I did," said Hallam calmly.
"Well, then," whooped the heckler, eager now to press his seeming advantage, "in the face of that statement, why do you now repudiate the nominee of that convention, the Honorable William Goebel?"
For his part Hallam waited for perfect quiet and at length got it.
"I admit," he stated blandly, "that I said then what I now repeat, namely, that when the Democratic party of Kentucky, in convention assembled, sees fit in its wisdom to nominate a yaller dog for the governorship of this great state, I will support him — but lower than that ye shall not drag me!"
As a Progressive Democrat, I recognize and identify with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, AND with the progressive peace, justice, and environmental sustainability movements in the general population. Both are very important!!!
I encourage kindred spirits to check out pdamerica.org and take the Peace Pledge. National board members of PDA include Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Yearwood, Tom Hayden, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Mimi Kennedy, et. al. PDA has an "inside/outside" strategy.
My big question in our democracy is "How do we hold our elected officials accountable?" Campaign contributions from corporations (especially the ones from the energy, weapons manufacturing, and health care sectors) play a huge role in the policies that our govenment create. This is a factor which affects the Republican and Democratic parties. To pretend this dynamic is not undermining our democracy is to put on pollyanna blinders. You can find these blinders on the shelf next to the "We are winning the war in Iraq" blinders. So I encourage everyone: Green, Progressive Dems, Non-Progressive Dems, Unaffilitateds, Republicans, folks affiliated with other Parties, to support (and educate neighbors, friends, and coworkers about) Clean Public Financing of Political Campaigns. Keep corporate money out of the process . . . it compromises elected officials! We always have to ask if their policy creation represents their donors or their constituents? Naomi Klein has just published a new book entitled, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." She's included 70 pages of footnotes to back-up her thesis. This book is tops on my Fall reading list!
As for the circular firing squad . . . and "holding" each other accountable . . . I attended the Media Reform Conference in Memphis TN this past January. 3,000 media activists from all over this country and the world attended this conference (next one is in June of '08 in Minneapolis). Van Jones was the closing keynote speaker. His advice to us . . . 1) come up with constructive alternatives, 2) critique each other but don't shoot each other (the Neo Cons are laughing at how easily we sometimes sabotage ourselves), and 3) hold (as in a hug) each other accountable. The Buddhist in me says it is through compassion and loving kindness that understanding and transformation truly occur. For some folks that may seem too "New Age" but when I think of the history of non-violent direct action I see it as an effective tool. The Greensboro 4 come to mind, as do Thich Nhat Hanh, Martin Luther King Jr., and Julia Butterfly. I also recognize the positive aspects of the Black Panther Movement . . . the focus on self reliance and the cultivation of community and individual empowerment. I also recognize the unjust attack on the movement by the FBI.
Remember there is a huge boulder we need to move and there are many different hand holds we can take as we push. We don't all have to push from the same place, in fact it's not very effective to do so. On some level we need to work from our common ground, acknowledge our differences, and commit to future dialogue regarding both. That's my 2 cents.
Namaste,
Evi
How's about tonight or Sunday evening around 6:00 somewhere?