GOP bashes Udall over missing recess vote
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 11:59 a.m., August 1, 2008
Updated 11:23 p.m., August 1, 2008
Mark Udall
Did he keep his promise, or didn't he?
On Friday, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall voted with Republicans to keep Congress in session until lawmakers consider a crucial energy bill.
But on Wednesday, when the issue first came up for a vote, Udall didn't cast one because he wasn't present.
The matter has turned into a tempest because Udall had vowed during a U.S. Senate debate with opponent Bob Schaffer on Monday that he would vote against summer adjournment unless Congress first took up the energy bill.
Udall's campaign spokeswoman, Tara Trujillo, said Udall did keep his pledge because Friday's action was the official vote on breaking for the summer.
Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager, said Friday's vote was "absolutely meaningless." He said the initial vote to recess was the important one because it sent a message. It passed by only one vote.
Udall missed the vote, Wadhams said, because "he was screwing around in Colorado raising money for his campaign."
"Udall did not keep any promise," said a fired-up Wadhams.
"He's not going to get away with it. We're going to shove a bunch of 30-second ads up his a-- on this issue over the course of the campaign. This guy was fundraising in Colorado and missing votes. That is reprehensible."
Trujillo countered, "What is reprehensible is when oil and gas executives like Bob Schaffer vote to give billions in tax breaks to one of the richest industries in the world, while Coloradans struggle to put gas in their cars and food on their tables."
Udall missed Tuesday's votes in Congress. His campaign said he was in Colorado in meetings and a fundraiser.
He flew to Washington Wednesday. The speaker of the House that same day called for a vote on the recess issue. Udall, while driving from the airport to the Capitol, tried to get a delay on the vote, but was unsuccessful, Trujillo said. He was running up the steps of the Capitol when the vote ended.
Udall, of Eldorado Springs, was elected to Congress in 1998. Schaffer, of Fort Collins, served three terms before stepping down in 2002 to honor his term limits pledge.
bartels@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5327
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
August 1, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
squeakywheel writes:
So the Republicans stay in session trying to debate the benefits of drilling, while Pelosi turns off the lights, shuts down C-SPAN and the Dems go on vacation, virtually until election day.
Maybe it's a good thing that they won't do any more damage, but how irresponsible and arrogant of this Democrat congress.
August 1, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
Hah! so much for that cheap rightie spin-job. Do you think Bob Schaffer will regret getting so high and mighty about this? I think he owes Udall an apology.
How does it feel to have been schooled again, Sealover? Another bogus misdirection from Schaffer, unquestioningly regurgitated? Thank God for Lynn Bartels.
August 1, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
squeakywheel writes:
I think Udall knows this is a losing issue for the Dems if they keep going down this road.
And it just might be THE DEFINING issue in 2008.
August 1, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Every since the Democrats have taken over congress they have fallen flat on their "promises". Nancy Pelosi does not care about the American people nor their cry for an energy plan THAT WORKS! What is Madame Speaker so afraid of? Congress has the lowest approval rating, sitting at 9% must make Mrs. Pelosi all warm and fuzzy inside.
Good for the Republicans, at least they're willing to stay and fight for what 73% of the American public wants, and thats to drill here.
August 1, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
"All the time is fundraisers. All the time is money, money, money, money. In 1998, ten years ago, I ran and had to raise $8.5 million. The record is there. $8.5 million is $30,000 a week... Each and every week for six years."
"The game is money. I've got to get the money -- to heck with constituents, I've got to get contributors."
"I've talked to the senators; you ask them, they know they're not getting anything done... They're grown men and they're conscientious women... but they know that all they're doing is on a money treadmill. That's all it is."
US Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings R-SC 1966-2003 in an interview with Bill Moyers on July 23, 2008
August 1, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Whoops, "Fritz" was a Democrat.
August 1, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Wind, solar, corn based ethanol and air in the tires. Wind, solar, corn based ethanol and air in the tires, come everyone chant with me. This is the Obama/Udall energy plan. A windmill on every car and tires inflated to 200 PSI. Obama really is the second coming of Carter. The last time I owned a car that needed a “tune-up” was during Carter's reign of terror.
August 1, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
AndyB588 writes:
Wow.. most of the commenters here have very short memories and very little understanding of how Congress works!!
Shut off the lights and not allow a vote.. Where would they have learned that one.. ohh wait that's what the Repubs always did,, shut off the microphones, secretly move meeting locations.. sneaky games..
AND why does Congress have a low approval rating of 9%,, because that's what the republican's WANT! They have done everything they can to STOP, STALL and OBSTRUCT anything and everything. Until we have a SUPER MAJORITY and a DEM in the WHITE HOUSE we are all stuck with a do nothing congress.
August 1, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Gene,
Did that actually happen. I couldn't find it on line.
August 1, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
Lets say that the government opened up ALL areas for drilling, no restrictions. What incentive do the oil companies have to rush out there, drill as much oil as they can as fast as they can and flood the market in order to bring down oil prices? They are making all-time world-wide record profits as the price of oil goes up. Why would they want to bring the price down?
August 1, 2008
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
This is great. This is the issue that will sink Obama, Udall and the other people's party candidates. Go on Democrats tell us how new drilling and more drilling will not lower prices. Please keep telling us how supply and demand doesn't work. Please tell us that drilling now will not lower prices for ten years (You've been saying that for at least 12 years now). Tell us about filling our tires with air, tune-ups and how we should touch a hot stove because we'll get burned. Thanks Obammy! How's that corn based ethanol doing Ritter. How are the wind turbines breaking our addiction to foreign oil? Udall.
These folks and all of their Sierra Club bosses may be in for a rough couple of years.
August 1, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
Read my question, BigWind. I'm not questioning that adding more supply would bring the price down. I'm asking why would the oil companies voluntarily flood the market in order to bring the price down when they are making all-time world-wide record profits with the price of oil high? Why would they do that?
August 1, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
YourNeilness,
I'm just a dumb, bible thumping, racist, redneck, white trash, rush listening, conservative,(I'll get that out of the way), but if Exxon boosts production they would get today's price for more barrels resulting in higher revenues. Do you believe that if this happened, BP would sit by and say, "I'm not boosting production, I want to provide price supports for Exxon's increased production"? Capitalism is dog eat dog. If one boost production they all boost production or they see their revenues drop. They are not OPEC. Capitalism incents them to boost revenues and profits. Period. The very reason that liberals consider them evil, profits is the reason they will boost supplies and lower prices. It is their Achilles heel. If Exxon boosted production their revenue would go up in relation to BP’s. If BP didn’t match the move, guess who gets a bigger end of year bonus? The Exxon CEO or the BP CEO? Whose stock would rise? If they acted together to keep supplies off the market, their could end up as butt buddies in prison.
But please don't let me change your mind. Keep us from drilling more. Keep pushing wind and solar as the only solutions. That is a winner for your party.
August 1, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
"if Exxon boosts production they would get today's price for more barrels resulting in higher revenues."
So, government opens up new areas for drilling, which takes many years until it actually produces oil on the market, and they're going to get 2008 prices for it? Not the price that exists at the time the oil hits the market? You were right about the dumb part of your resume', that's for sure.
August 1, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Just wait till September when the lower demand and growing surplus makes delivery and storage a problem. The GOP will not get their way and the emperors cloths will be falling with the gas prices. Gas has been artificially inflated past 95 dollars a barrel for far too long and this has nothing to do with supply or demand and everything to do with the unstable market.
August 1, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
Big_D,
It's the oil companies that are making a fortune speculating on their own comodity that is artificially driving the price up. They're not making these record profits from the high price of gas, they're making it on the speculation. They create the false idea that there is a supply shortage, which drives the price up and they make a killing without selling anything but paper-barrels of oil. Its the same thing the energy companies did in the California energy crisis. Now they're doing it worldwide. There is no supply shortage. The gas station always has gas when you pull up, right?
August 1, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
allseasonsfan writes:
It has always been known that US Oil companies could not drill for oil economically until the price for a barrel went over a certain price, now it has far exceed that. And yes there profits have increased, but their margin has decreased. But this money isn't in vaults, it goes back to R&D and back into the companies. These people are not stupid, they know that part of their future lies in renewable energies and alternative fuels. If that is what you want let free market happen. That is what has gotten us out of the agricultural age, into and out of the industrial age, into and out of the information age and now into the biological age. Free market, its a wonderful thing if you let it work.
August 1, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
YourNeilness,
I'll explain because you are a democrat. Saying you boost production is not boosting production. (Exxon boosts production the very second the additional oil comes out of the ground.) The day they boost production they would get the price for that day, which would be the current price. Putting aside your attempt at mental superiority (You would lose I assure you) One can buy and sell future oil contracts, gas contracts and electric contracts. Would you like to know the price of electricity for Eastern Colorado in 2014? We’ve got it.
I should have said they get the then current price for oil. Nice move deflecting the actual point of my post. How about the rest of it? Can you get you liberal mind around how producing and selling commodities works? Can you understand that no oil company would voluntary reduce their production because it would benefit a competitor?
You premise was that they would not boost supplies because it would reduce profits and I think I’ve shown that to be incorrect. I’m guessing you’re not in the energy industry are you? How about another dodge or subject shift?. How’s my grammar? Anything than admit your premise was wrong.
August 1, 2008
7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
AndyB- I work in DC and I'm on capitol hill a lot so I have a pretty good idea how congess works. If you are referring to when the Democrats protested back in 90's, they were very classless! Dressing then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich up in diapers. Oh yeah really professional of our elected officials!
At least the Republicans are showing class and not attacking the way Mrs. Pelosi looks. The Democrats in 2006 promised to work on energy issues. They have no plan! They have done nothing!
August 1, 2008
7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
When the Republicans controlled Congress, they did exactly the same thing for years: turned off the lights and went home for their vacations. Leaving all kinds of business undone, including having to pass constant Continuing Resolutions to keep agencies open on a month to month basis.
Not a good idea for the FBI, Armed Services, etc. but they did it.
Even if drilling is allowed doesn't somebody have to build more refineries to process the product ? Or is that not going to happen so that the supply remains below the demand ?
August 1, 2008
9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
mattm writes:
Pelosi tried to shut the debate down, as shown by her denial to move back a vote she knew Udall was on the other side of. It seems to me the vote was inconsequential since there is both a large number of Republicans and Democrats who seem to want to keep things from happening and it would have only prolonged gridlock. Udall doesn't seem like one of those, even if you disagree with his policies. In any case D. Whadhams consistently proves himself to be such a crass morally reprehensible person (if you can consider him that), I really wish their campaign would chose someone else to speak for them, it seems telling of their campaign and Schaffer as a person that they put up with it.
August 1, 2008
9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
If anything, Udall's people made a mistake by not getting out in front of the fact that a final vote was required. They could have defused this the moment Wadhams started chortling about it, because it never really was a big deal. The vote was today, Udall voted as he promised, next issue please.
But it's natural that Wadhams and crew will milk this piddly "situation" for all it possibly can be milked for, in the hope that it will distract attention from the numerous major Schaffer scandals awaiting intense revisitation after Labor Day. There's no question that the combination of defending and enabling sweatshops on American soil, consorting with government fraudsters and dubious charter-school operators, endangering Iraq's stability via oil profiteering with local interests against the wishes of the US government, the most extremist whacko friends you can possibly imagine, ridiculous attempts to "greenwash" his Big Oil resume, reactionary on just about every given wedge issue the righties have and voters increasingly revile, not to mention a generally priggish personal demeanor...
Yeah. Bob Schaffer. Unelectable.
August 1, 2008
9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Skyebeader writes:
I am so very glad that Mr Udall will only be representing me for a very short while longer. Then, he will ride off into the sunset of Eldorado canyon and spend the rest of his life shoveling snow with his designer shovel from McGuckin's. Good riddance!
August 2, 2008
12:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
These are some of the best responses. I heard Udall and Caplis and Silverman 630KHOW and he said "we don't want to add to "big oil's" portfolio"..
Err.. Yea I do! There are millions of Americans through private investments or 401K's, some elderly that depend on those dividends to eat. There are more millions of working Americans doing the same and saving it for their children's college, (not to worry, those "greedy" workers will pay taxes on that too!)
Then everyone is ga-ga over "big oil profits".. but the raw numbers don't tell the story..
How much did they spend to KEEP THE GAS IN THE PUMPS FOR YOU brother and sister?
Ya see sparkies, if the price of CRUDE goes up, you raise the price at the pump to keep the same margin of profit to stay alive to pay the dividends as well as the CEO..
While "Big Oil" got over 400 million dollars in profits it was taxed 1.3 trillion by state and local governments. (and Ritter wants to tax more!) If he does, just lay on your back, raise your knees behind your head and get ready.. You would have just stuck it to yourself again. ..
How much of an impact do taxes have on what you pay at the pump? I don't hear anyone screaming about a Federal Windfall Profits Tax refund.. oh yeah, that was that little "stimulus package". Wow, our "Lords" tossed us some crumbs. Do I hear any thank yous from the socialists.. naw.. they want "universal healthcare" too..
Oh by the way, duing all those years that the Republicans were cutting taxes for the rich.. I don't recall any fillibusters or any parlimentry trickery going on by the Democrats. Why, because the Republicans believe in buying votes too, just like the Democrats and were passing plenty of "bi partisan" social programs..
Remember please lads and lasses, who ever robs peter to pay paul, paul will vote for him.. Obama? Clinton? Reid? Pelosi? So why not Bush, McCain, or any of the other "bad" guys you like to admonish?
Udall is a crank. .
Try out
www.fatheromalley.com more than just the home page, browse, plenty of videos, new ideas finally and perspective that you don't get here. Try it.. our possibilities are not the doom and gloom of Al Gore or Mark Udall or John McCain or Barrack Obama.
America deserves better than these.. start contacting your local, state, and federal representatives.. let them know.. drill now... and discover the possibilities of Hydrogen Run internal combustion engines. www.fatheromalley.com. For those that prefer endless questions, remain here..
Love to all,
Father O'Malley
August 2, 2008
12:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
TaiPan9121 writes:
YourNeilness, hello...where did you go???? Obviously BigWindUdall was just too smart. Like all good liberals you'd rather talk about your fellings over a latte in an airconditoned bistro while discussing the sacrifices (other) Americans are going to have to make to save the planet.
But I'm not near as smart. So riddle me this YourNeliness - what is it that Democrats have against just holding a vote? They have the majority -shouldn't they just be able to vote the thing down and move on to the "peoples business" (like trashing the 1st Ammendment with the fairness doctrine)? Oops - I forgot, Democrats don't like a record of votes that either might win (see Federal Judge appointments) or that might create a record that A VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS would oppose....
Perhaps they don't want Udall (the race the whole country will be watching in November) to have to answer why he voted NOT to drill and increase supplies so that prices would go down.
August 2, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
danirobi: "At least the Republicans are showing class and not attacking the way Mrs. Pelosi looks."
Class? You call Wadhams' statement that they're going to shove a bunch of ads up Udall's a$$ as class??
August 2, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Bigwindudall: "Capitalism incents them to boost revenues and profits. Period. The very reason that liberals consider them evil, profits is the reason they will boost supplies and lower prices."
You're right in that increasing profits is at the heart of capitalism. However, boosting supplies isn't necessarily the only way to do that.
Judging by your insult that Dems don't understand supply and demand, I assume you consider yourself somewhat of an expert on economics. If that is indeed the case, I am surprised you appear completely unaware of one of the most commonly known rules in business, which is:
Why make more of something for less, when you can make less of something for more?
That is what Neil is trying to explain to you, but for whatever reasons, it's sailing right over your head.
August 2, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
bugmenot writes:
The question is: Who is more irresponsible - Lynn Bartles or Mark Udall? It's hard to tell, given they are both Democrats.
August 2, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Since his first name is censored by this service, I'll call him Mister Wadhams, who has about had it with Lynn Bartels. In every story she writes he's yelling at her. That the News has Bartels writing about Schaffer says a lot about who Temple wants to win, or in this case, lose. The News could assign one of it's many conservative writers out of fairness, to cover Schaffer, such as Vince Carroll or ... ah ... Vince Carroll.
August 3, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
"He was running up the steps of the Capitol when the vote ended."
What? Udall parks in special parking at the airport, Udall has reserved parking at his office building, and Udall takes a subway tram from the office building to the Capitol building.
That quote is a lie.
August 4, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Gene proudly quotes the frat-house antics his beloved Republicans"
"from the Hill; "Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chamber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed. He then said, "I am a Democrat, and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around the House floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.
Really Gene? That makes you proud? Political posturing is going to bring gas prices down? Acting like fools is going to keep peoples mortgages paid? Playground mudslinging is going to get how many American families heath care?
Don't you think it's time to quit playing games Gene?