May 27, 2008 7:22 AM
Schaffer camp zaps Udall's zip
You have to admit,"Eldorado Springs Liberal" doesn't roll off the tongue like "Boulder Liberal." Then again, you'd think a campaign that turned Mount McKinley into Pikes Peak wouldn't want to be calling this much attention to geography.
Congressman Mark Udall and his family live 1 1/2 miles from the Eldorado Springs post office, but the Udall mailing address is Boulder, reports Lynn Bartels.
So, does Udall really live in Eldorado Springs?
Yes, says the Boulder County Assessor's Office and the Rocky Mountain Fire Protection District.No, says Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams, who has made Udall's address an issue in the U.S. Senate campaign between Udall and former Congressman Bob Schaffer, R-Fort Collins.
Wadhams, who also is Schaffer's campaign manager, never misses a chance to attach "Boulder liberal" to Udall's name.
Wadhams produced Udall's congressional financial disclosures, the warranty deed on his house and his voter registration record. All show the Democratic congressman's address as Boulder.
"His mailing address says Boulder, but his physical address where he is located is Eldorado Springs," said Trish Dunbar, Boulder County deputy assessor.
In a Wikipedia entry on Eldorado Springs, Udall is listed under "notable residents."
Wadhams dismissed that, noting that Udall's 80303 ZIP code is Boulder.
"The Eldorado Springs ZIP code is 80025," said Wadhams, who accused Udall of "lying and misrepresenting his residency."
Colorado's zip codes are often misleading. To judge by mailing addresses, Englewood sprawls all over the southeast metro area. Centennial Airport is located 10 minutes east of Greenwood Village but has an Englewood mailing address. Many south Jefferson County residents have Littleton mailing addresses despite living miles from the city.
Although Udall has always had a Boulder mailing address, he's never lived within the city limits.
Rocky media critic Jason Salzman wrote about Wadhams' use of the "Boulder Liberal" tag on Udall, suggesting the media should paraphrase Wadhams instead of quoting him directly.
If you're a journalist, and you're confronted with Wadhams' "branding" PR tactics, what do you do? Do you allow his everyday quotes to be a conduit for off-topic name-calling that's not only repetitive but also false, because Udall lives in Eldorado Springs?No, you don't. You paraphrase the guy. The public interest isn't served by printing "Boulder liberal" repeatedly in the newspaper, unless it's relevant to the story at hand.
Do you care where Mark Udall lives? Should the media paraphrase Wadhams and others from the Schaffer campaign when they repeatedly call Udall a "Boulder liberal"? Are such slogans effective "branding" of opponents or can they backfire on a campaign?
May 27, 2008
8:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
May 27, 2008
8:37 AM
Anonymous writes:
Big Oil Bob lives in Saudi Arabia where he leaves his wallet. Follow the money.
This is a nit picking non issue.
May 27, 2008
9:11 AM
JMH writes:
Not sure why living in Boulder is such a bad thing. It's a beautiful town. But I think we all know why Wadhams is doing this... because it is "RED MEAT" to the conservative sheep in the GOP.
They have nothing positive to run on, considering the massive failures of the NeoCon agenda the last 7 years, so of course they go to the typical GOP playbook of "label and demonize". The idea here that if you vote for Udall, he will lead us into smoking pot and burning flags or some silly steriotype like that...
Whatever you do Mr. Wadhams, don't get into "grown-up" discussions about policy or results... your boy - "Big Oil" Bob (see we can do it too) will get dusted if you do because we all know now that the GOP only works for the interests of the wealthy and powerful while leaving the rest of us as an afterthought. Stay in the mud, it is your only chance!
May 27, 2008
9:22 AM
R writes:
Today it is about an address, what will it be tomorrow? Where Udall shops for groceries? - How bad would the GOP lose every election if they could only run on the issues?
May 27, 2008
9:24 AM
Newbie writes:
I don't know anything about either of these guys. Why is Schaffer known as "Big Oil Bob"?
May 27, 2008
9:33 AM
primafacie writes:
What's the diff? Mark Udall is a liberal. Boulder is a conclave of lefties. If the shoe fits ... and judging from the umbrage from said lefties, it apparently does.
May 27, 2008
9:47 AM
JMH writes:
I love how nitwit NeoCons like prima think "liberal" is a bad word. Considering the dismal failures of the "conservatives"...
"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal."
Oh the horror...
May 27, 2008
10:44 AM
Shaggy writes:
Actually Bam Bam,
It's the Liberals who have become so sensitive and embarrassed for being a Liberal that they have become to think that anyone who calls them a Liberal are doing it to degrade them when actually they are just describing their political position.
I'm just waiting for the Liberals and politically correct crowd to start labeling people as racists when they use that word when describing someone.
And I am sure we will see this happen in this years election because Obama is very Liberal and does not like to be described that way because he will lose votes.
Thats another thing he wants to be off limits besides the other couple dozen off limits items he has told us about.
May 27, 2008
11:01 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE
The guy is still a socialist no matter where he hangs his hat.
May 27, 2008
11:11 AM
Veronica Barela writes:
Bob Schaffer is a typical Republican. They do not run on issues, but shallow self righteous religious ideaologies. Who cares about zip codes, what I care about is health care, human and civil rights, the economy and Udall winning in November!
May 27, 2008
11:41 AM
Anonymous writes:
The stupidity of the right continues. They can't run on issues so they start the 3rd grade name calling, smear, fear tactics. The funny/sad thing is people like shag, sas, etc... are still stupid enough to buy into it. God help this country!
May 27, 2008
12:32 PM
Mr. Bam Bam to you shaggy (JMH) writes:
"It's the Liberals who have become so sensitive and embarrassed for being a Liberal that they have become to think that anyone who calls them a Liberal are doing it to degrade them when actually they are just describing their political position." -shaggy
Ya know shag, I actually agree with you here. I have stated many times that conservatives have no brains but have balls and vice versa for liberals - all brains and no balls. Talking about politicians though, not Americans.
I for one am proud to call myself a social liberal. I think most Americans really are (except the super-religious of course. Most Americans I know say "live and let live"). What has happened was the right started making "liberal" a bad word a few decades ago and liberal politicians actually let themselves be labeled (instead of standing up for what the word really means - ie. see my definition from below post) and ran from it, because the right was successful in linking the hard line liberals (hippies, pacifists, etc.) with the word "liberal" and that in the 80's the country rebelled against the liberal establishment that ran the country for 30 plus years at that point. Nevermind that mainstream liberals are more to the center than mainstream conservatives seem to be lately and now teh opposite seems to be happening in America. Americans are now rebelling against "conservatism" after the last decade or so. These feelings have ebbed and flowed back and forth since the beginning of our Republic.
This is why (and you are guilty of it yourself with the whole "Obama is the most liberal" nonsense that you state over and over) attacking someone as a "liberal" isn't going to work. After this dark period in our history, Americans WANT a liberal again after years of conservative domination and years of this "low-ball" political crap from them. The nation has alot of problems now and we want new leadership and new ideas, not more of the same childish name calling and fear tactics from our elected officials!
So while I agree with your post (the top part, you just got silly at the end), I will say it is exactly these kind of antics from Wadhams and other old school NeoCons that America is sick of and will no long be suckers for. It worked for a few years, but Americans in general have seen what voting for "10 second sound bites" have gotten them and that is all the GOP is offering again!
May 27, 2008
12:39 PM
primafacie writes:
JMH, if liberal isn't a bad word, and if the definition you cite accurately reflects where the political left in the U.S. sits, why are they so hacked off?
May 27, 2008
12:44 PM
JMH writes:
Just explained that prima...
May 27, 2008
1:25 PM
Shaggy writes:
Bam Bam,
Are you saying Obama isn't the farthest lefty in the senate by the way of his votes?
Are you saying Obama isn't a uber lefty compared to Hillary or even McCain?
(on most issues)
If you don't, then I can safely assume you are just one of the many Obama groupies that still have no idea who or what this guy is about except you think he is the next coming messiah of some kind.
The only actual substance we have on Obama is his voting record and that puts him very far left...that isn't nonsense...thats factual.
Ask yourself something, why does Obama repeatedly try to keep his personal past off limits to the election.
What does this guy have to hide.
Why does he get mad when he is called a Liberal?
Answer to the last one is he will lose votes...people do not want..errr...scratch that...most people who are not in the media or who aren't Liberals will not vote for him.
That is why he doesn't want his past talked about.
We could go into his inexperience if you want.
The guy is bad bad for America.
May 27, 2008
1:28 PM
peterpi writes:
If you don't want to hear about Big Oil Bob, then stop referring to Boulder Liberal Udall. Dick Wadhams, who has never met a non-paleo-conservative Republican that he liked, loves ad hominem attacks. Why debate issues when it's so much easier to attack someone as a lawyer/lobbyist or Boulder liberal. So from now on I'll refer to Big Oil Bob and Phony Veterinarian Allard.
May 27, 2008
1:41 PM
Tbone writes:
Shaggy-
Actually, there are 38 senators with more liberal voting records than Sen Obama's.
This whole "m0st lie-beral person ever!!1!!!" meme was coined by the National Review, and they based it on one vote.
May 27, 2008
1:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
'Americans WANT a liberal again' --Mr. Bam Bam
not so much want one as probably have no choice if we want to change things from the current regime which seems unwilling to change .. it will require a thinning of the heard to be rid of the old guard who followed the model that changed the party from fiscal conservatives who are for strong ethics and military, etc., to spendthrifts, perverts, and whoremongers .... but rest assured, probably no more than 8 years of high taxes and big boosts in social welfare giveaways, and the dems will lose seats and the white house again ...... 'the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, we don't know where we'll be tomorrow' --Journey
May 27, 2008
1:53 PM
Shaggy writes:
Actually Tbone, yes it was done by national review but no, it wasn't based on just one vote but rather 267 votes. Thats a left wing talking point that is once again false.
Nice try come play again.
"In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist."
May 27, 2008
1:55 PM
Shaggy writes:
Actually it was "The National Journal". Not the National Review.
May 27, 2008
1:57 PM
feisty writes:
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. It doesn't matter where he lives, as long as he follows any applicable laws.
Who cares?
May 27, 2008
1:57 PM
JW writes:
"This whole "m0st lie-beral person ever!!1!!!" meme was coined by the National Review, and they based it on one vote."
I thought it was three.
Either way, I already explained this to Shaggy. He's got it in his head now though. Reality no longer matters.
May 27, 2008
2:02 PM
JW writes:
"Actually Tbone, yes it was done by national review but no, it wasn't based on just one vote but rather 267 votes."
Tsk tsk Shaggy. Your quote doesnt say that. It says Hillary and Obama differed on only 10 out of 267. Thats it. It doesnt state how many votes were used in the decision to label Obama most liberal. And since Hillary is CLEARLY nowhere near the most liberal (she is actually a fiscal conservative) and Obama only differed from her 10 times in 267...well, I would think this would make even you wonder where the National Journal came up with their bs.
May 27, 2008
2:19 PM
Shaggy writes:
I was clearly correcting Tbone on his assumption thta Obamas uber liberalism was based on just one vote JW.
They based it on ALL THE VOTES OF ALL THE SENATORS.
Democratic and Republican.
I posted that quote as to show Tbone the number of votes...not the differences.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Having a Memorial day hang over still?
May 27, 2008
2:25 PM
Shaggy writes:
Actually JW and Tbone.
They based it on 99 key votes.
Here is a link providing how they voted on issues.
Its too bad Obama keeps voting present instead of actually taking a stance on issues.
I am sure he does that on purpose as to not expose himself so he can change postions at the drop of a hat.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm
May 27, 2008
2:30 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator."
LOL. Ok, so the NJ claims they used 99 of the 267 votes to base their ratings on. Does that strike you as odd Shaggy? Why not all 267? Doesn't it strike you as strange that the NJ only used 40% of the total votes to rank these people? Does that suggest a possible SKEW in the data set to you Shaggy?
Thats all assuming you believe they actually did use 99 votes, rather than one or three. And of course, then you also have to assume that the NJ knows wtf they are talking about regarding conservative/liberal, which I am tempted to question.
All in all, Obama's stated policies are not uber liberal, especially where fiscal policy is concerned (though they are in some areas a bit left of my personal likes). His differing from Clinton's record on only 10 out of 267 further suggests that he isnt all that liberal, as clearly Clinton herself is not.
May 27, 2008
2:44 PM
JW writes:
BTW Shaggy, did you bother to read any of the bill measures and decide if NJ got their "conservative/liberal" rating correct? I did.
"Create a national action plan for reducing oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030. June 12. (63-30) L-2"
The NJ says voting yes on this is a liberal position. WTF is that about? Reducing oil consumption is a LIBERAL stance? What, conservatives want to INCREASE oil consumption? Not according to Bush or McSame. Apparently, anyone who wants to get us off oil is a liberal, which is strange, because pretty much everybody wants to do that.
"Agree to final passage of a bill implementing the 9/11 commission's homeland-security recommendations, including a provision extending collective bargaining rights to federal security screeners. March 13. (60-38) L-3"
Hehe. So the liberal vote here was to vote yes. Implementing the 9/11 comission's homeland security recomendations is apparently a liberal cause now. Guess McSame is gona be bummed. The conservatives just lost the "we are the best on homeland security" rating.
"Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. January 18. (27-71) C-1"
This just about killed me laughing. The liberal vote was yes. Hillary voted no. I'm perplexed as to what this thing actually meant, but without more info the thing looks like its meant to promote ethics in the senate. Funny that the NJ says that being ethical is a Liberal position, which tells us conservatives are unethical.
This thing is crap Shaggy. Its meaningless.
2:30 was me as well.
May 27, 2008
2:53 PM
Mr. Bam Bam!!! writes:
After 7 years of the far right messing up everything with their votes and idiology, I would welcome anyone who votes 180 degrees different than the members of the "Bush Crime Family" and the rest of the GOP.
Considering the state of the union today, Obama was very smart to vote "liberally". All he has to do is show his voting record to the public and say "...see, it wasn't me that put America in the position it is today!" Think about it, Hillary voting in league with the NeoCons during the build up to the occupation of Iraq didn't exactly work out well for her!
By the way shaggy, if you think McCain is doing the right thing by voting against additional veteran benefits like he just did, you are high. That "conservative" vote will hurt him, make no mistake about it... no matter what he says to the contrary...
P.S.
1:51 - ".... but rest assured, probably no more than 8 years of high taxes and big boosts in social welfare giveaways, and the dems will lose seats and the white house again".
You may be right about this statement, but it is the Dems who advocate a "Pay as You Go" system and you are basing this assesment on old thinking. While this may have been true with Dems a few decades ago, it no longer is. Just rememeber who left us with a surplus (Clinton) and who just spent more than any administration EVER (Bush) and put us in a record deficit... and his administration wasn't even responsible about it, it was all "spend and borrow." No wonder the dollar aint worth anything anymore! Also, as far as social welfare, I think Dems learned their lessons on this. Rememeber it was Clinton that lowered welfare rolls to their lowest numbers in years. Though I will admit, I do worry about spending with a Congress that has yet to see a spending bill they didn't like (on both sides), especially with a Democrat in the White House. Obama will be reluctant to make other Dems look bad with vetoes (as Bush did with conservatives his first 6 years), but who knows. Maybe he will...
May 27, 2008
3:03 PM
raysmom writes:
Is it possible to have a reasonable opinion on this thread? Or does everyone have to be a "greedy, Bible-thumping neo-con" or a "Kool-Aid drinking liberal"? I've never seen such a judgemental, polarized bunch.
I must admit, I have seen more negative stereotyping on this blog of Republicans- I am a registered Democrat, my husband is a Republican, and I have a diverse group of friends. We disagree sometimes, but we all agree that pigeon-holing, insulting, and labeling people is for the weak-minded idealogue.
That being said, I don't know yet who I'm voting for- but none of my reasoning will be based on silly stuff like this. Oh, and these ill-advised campaign people are just giving many people on both sides what they want- extremist jargon that they can latch onto, rather than information- that would require some thinking and open-mindedness.
May 27, 2008
3:05 PM
raysmom writes:
Is it possible to have a reasonable opinion on this thread? Or does everyone have to be a "greedy, Bible-thumping neo-con" or a "Kool-Aid drinking liberal"? I've never seen such a judgemental, polarized bunch.
I must admit, I have seen more negative stereotyping on this blog of Republicans- I am a registered Democrat, my husband is a Republican, and I have a diverse group of friends. We disagree sometimes, but we all agree that pigeon-holing, insulting, and labeling people is for the weak-minded idealogue.
That being said, I don't know yet who I'm voting for- but none of my reasoning will be based on silly stuff like this. Oh, and these ill-advised campaign people are just giving many people on both sides what they want- extremist jargon that they can latch onto, rather than information- that would require some thinking and open-mindedness.
May 27, 2008
3:21 PM
Shaggy writes:
I'm not saying it isn't debatable about the formula they used to obtain the results of their findings.
YES, I think using 99 of the key votes is plenty of info to determine ones mind set.
I am just pointing out the results of their findings and their findings show both of them to be Liberal but Obama as an uber liberal.
Notice how many times he doesn't vote just so he can avoid getting pinned down on an issue that might come back to kick his ass.
anyhoo believe what you want...I don't think I will be voting Obama this year...No JW, I am not a partisan voter, I am not a McCain fan but I do think he has more experience and I want Iraq as an ally in the middle east...did you know they have the worlds second largest oil reserve?
Did you know things are getting better and better over there?
The Liberal media fails to point that fact out.
Can you imagine what would happen if we surrendered like the Democrats want...errr...scratch that....what they say they want(because all they do is squawk about it and do nothing)and Iran moves in to fill that void thus control their oil and thus dictating the U.S.'s economy?
Prices would soar higher than if the oil companies were socialized like Maxine Waters wants to do.
Or if we take away tax incentives like Hillary wants to do.
May 27, 2008
3:24 PM
raysmom writes:
Is it possible to have a reasonable opinion on this thread? Or does everyone have to be a "greedy, Bible-thumping neo-con" or a "Kool-Aid drinking liberal"? I've never seen such a judgemental, polarized bunch.
Poster Victoria B. illustrates my point nicely- "Bob Schaffer is a typical Republican. They do not run on issues, but shallow self righteous religious ideaologies". Many Republicans are non-religious, hard-working, good people who are rightfully worried about taxation, defense, immigration and energy exploration. You need to get away from HuffingtonPost.com for a while and entertain independent thought, Dear.
And not all Democrats are Socialist America haters, either- their take on social issues is much more reasonable, in many cases, and we need to make sure we don't destroy our resources while utilizing them. Both parties, at their best, should balance each other and work together, not work to tear each other down.
I must admit, I have seen more negative stereotyping on this blog of Republicans- I am a registered Democrat, my husband is a Republican, and I have a diverse group of friends. We disagree sometimes, but we all agree that pigeon-holing, insulting, and labeling people is for the weak-minded idealogue. We often vote across the aisle, which is why I prefer McCain and Clinton to Obama. He is no uniter.
That being said, I don't know yet who I'm voting for- but none of my reasoning will be based on silly stuff like this. Oh, and these ill-advised campaign people are just giving many people on both sides what they want- extremist jargon that they can latch onto, rather than information- that would require some thinking and open-mindedness.
May 27, 2008
3:32 PM
Anonymous writes:
'but it is the Dems who advocate a "Pay as You Go" system' -- Mr. Bam Bam
sad, isn't it? .... this used to be the mantra that the Reps hung their hats on for years and years, and our intention is to force the party back on track
'Just rememeber who left us with a surplus (Clinton)' -- Mr. Bam Bam
well, let's clarify ... he left us a surplus of the years budgets that he was in office ... not of the national debt which according to some is in excess of $40Trillion, about $3T of which was added to by W .... still, I accept and admire Bill for his positive modeling of government spending and would gladly return him to office in place of GW's terms .... damn, what a waste
May 27, 2008
4:19 PM
history buff writes:
Can't fault Udall for wanting to live in the Eldorado Springs area. Beautiful views of the front range. Much open space. There isn't a grocery store around the block, but it is a lot closer to town than living at 8000 feet on Flagstaff Road. Since he spends so much time in Washington, Udall probably doesn't want to be in walking distance of Pearl Street.
I guess Bogus Bob and his campaign manager, the one with the best name for a political lackey I have ever heard, Dick Wad, don't want people to think about the issues. Heaven forbid that Bogus Bob will have to justify his support for slave labor. And Bogus Bob and Dick Wad are so utterly strange, they shouldn't be asking people to think up personal insults. It most likely will turn against them.
May 27, 2008
4:39 PM
Anonymous writes:
Can we say "Liberal" on these blogs?
Or has Obama and the other wackos ruled that that is out of bounds too?
Who cares if Udall is a Liberal from Boulder or a Liberal from somewhere else, the fact he is a Liberal is enough to not vote for him.
Same rules apply to Obama.
May 27, 2008
5:52 PM
natasha writes:
Do I care where he lives? Only if I have a carton of eggs and a roll of toilet paper.
May 27, 2008
9:40 PM
These blog topics are dumb and dumber writes:
Nobody really cares where Mark Udall lives. Why are these blogs suddenly so boring--and unrelated to real news? Could it be due to the upcoming Democratic convention--or is this really about less-than subtle censorship?
May 28, 2008
1:04 AM
aida oling writes:
INTERESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 30, 2008
12:13 PM
666 writes:
I stick with my original thought on the matter...the campaign that doesn't know the difference between Mount McKinley and Pikes Peak thinks they can win a geographical debate???