Udall in spotlight at Dem Convention
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published May 17, 2008 at 11:04 a.m.
Updated May 18, 2008 at 4:07 p.m.
Photo by Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
Sharron Baldwin of Gunnison poses with U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall. Baldwin said she has long admired Udall, who posed for pictures with a number of delegates today.
Photo by Preston Gannaway © The Rocky
Delegate Dick Heyman, of Fort Collins, cheers with the crowd at the Democratic State Convention at the World Arena.
Photo by Preston Gannaway © The Rocky
Gov. Bill Ritter waves after speaking to the crowd at the Democratic State Convention at the World Arena in Colorado Springs.
Photo by Preston Gannaway © The Rocky
Congressman Ed Perlmutter cheers as he takes the stage at the Democratic State Convention at the World Arena in Colorado Springs.
Photo by Preston Gannaway © The Rocky
Surrounded by supporters, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Mark Udall waves to the crowd before his introduction at Democratic State Convention at the World Arena.
Photo by Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
Three Democrats from Denver County hold up Yes She Will signs for Hillary Clinton. Owen Perkins holds the "Yes" sign, Justine Lopez holds the "She" sign while Dafna Miriam Michaelson waved the "Will" sign.
COLORADO SPRINGS — Sharron Baldwin, of Gunnison, patiently waited in line to have her picture taken with the man she had admired from afar for so long.
“I just think Mark Udall can do a lot of good for the United States,” said Baldwin, a 66-year-old Democrat. “I like what he stands for.”
She and hundreds of other Democrats personally met with Udall today at the World Arena, where the Eldorado Springs congressman accepted the nomination as the Democratic candidate to the U.S. Senate.
Delegates had their pictures taken with Udall before and after his nomination speech, where he drew on his Colorado and Western background. His late mother is a Colorado native whose family operated a business in the Rocky Mountains. His late father is former Arizona congressman Mo Udall who came to Colorado in the 1940s to play professional basketball.
“My mom represented many of the qualities that make Colorado so special,” he said. “We are humble, hard-working and full of hope, proud yet pragmatic, fiercely independent, protective of our privacy, and we hold a firm belief in self-reliance.”
Udall’s nomination was the first order of business today at the Colorado Democratic Party assembly and convention. This afternoon, more than 1,500 people will compete for 12 at-large delegate and two at-large alternate slots to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.
Hundreds of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters waved signed and cheered for their candidates. Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, spoke on Clinton’s behalf, while Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano urged support for Obama.
Today’s event started on time, which is remarkable considering delays Friday on Day 1 because of long registration lines and computer problems that caused all three congressional district conventions to run late.
The 4th Congressional District gathering didn’t end until after 1 this morning.
Even before the event opened at 10 a.m. today, the crowd was on its feet as various slogans ran across huge TV screens at the World Arena:
“Right now, Marilyn Musgrave is shopping for moving vans.”
“Right now, Bob Schaffer is still trying to figure out what a Colorado mountain looks like.”
But the loudest whoops and hollers were reserved for this one:
“Right now, Tom Tancredo is serving his last term in Congress.”
In the Denver County area, three Clinton supporters held up signs that read “Yes” “She” “Will.”
In the El Paso County delegation section, hundreds wore ColoradObama shirts to support the Illinois senator.
Among the signs featured around the arena: “Vets against all wars” and one featuring a picture of Bush with the message “worst president ever.”
A slew of elected officials, from Gov. Bill Ritter to Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, spoke to conventioneers, talking about a new direction for the country.
“We are going to mop the floor with John McCain,” promised Rep. Diane DeGette, D-Denver.
Udall’s children, Tess and Jed, introduced a film about their father’s life this morning at the World Arena, just minutes before the congressman took the stage to accept his nomination as the Democrats’ candidate for the U.S. Senate. In the film, Udall is wearing a hiking jacket that, ironically, he wore when he climbed Mount McKinley in Alaska.
Udall’s opponent, former congressman Bob Schaffer, this week had to pull a campaign ad that featured Mount McKinley instead of Pikes Peak.
Udall was nominated by a variety of people from around the state, including former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, Pueblo legend Wally Stealy and Marguerite Salazar from the San Luis Valley.
Udall’s wife, Maggie Fox, choked up as she talked about the man she has known for 30 years.
“This election is not about the right or left – Republican or Democrat – Boulder or Fort Collins.” Mark Udall said. “It’s about the future and not the past.”
Udall, who has pushed renewable energy for years before it was popular, talked about the need to reduce America’s addiction to foreign oil and better economic policies.
“Fixing our broken economy won’t be easy, but fixing our priorities is,” Udall said to huge applause.
“Instead of handing out massive subsidies to oil companies that are already making record profits, let's invest in the green jobs of the future right here in Colorado.”
He talked about health care, education and national security.
“I opposed the Iraq war from the start,” he said, causing conventioneers to jump to their feet and cheer.
“I saw an administration rushing to war without a clear mission or a plan for success. This was no fault of our tremendous soldiers then, and it’s not fault of theirs now. They have met every challenge with courage, skill and quiet resolve.”
Meanwhile, Colorado Springs police said two men were cited after they tried to enter the convention without proper credentials.
Police Lt. Skip Arms said the men refused to leave the area Saturday and return to a public site where credentials weren't necessary. Each was cited for trespassing, which is a petty offense, and released.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
May 17, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Gene, Tommy: You think you can just walk into any place uninvited?
May 17, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonah writes:
Tommy, you never answered me: How long have you been on Schaffer's staff? Your blanket disparaging remarks mean nothing, but, if you look at the facts and their backgrounds, would apply more to Big Oil Bob the Ohioan Neo-Con.
May 17, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Buckwheat writes:
No way, I thought Doug Bruce was running?? Dang Gummitt....
May 17, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
maukaman writes:
Udall's latest commercial is in front of a wind farm. Try running your car on that. The democrats don't want offshore drilling (China is already drilling in the Gulf of Mexico), don't want drilling in the Anwar area of Alaska, want to delay oil shale development, etc. When gas is $5 a gallon we can thank Udall and his fellow environmental cohorts.
May 17, 2008
4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
StraightTalk writes:
If you think the price of gas is too high, thank Udall and those who think like him.
While I believe that every one of us can do more to conserve energy (ex: carpool when possible, combine errands when possible, drive as fuel efficiently as you can), I don't believe that we should place all the places mentioned in other posts, plus others (ex: the North Dakota Bakken Shale play for oil and the Appalachian Basin Marcellus Shale play for natural gas).
We need a two-pronged approach (1) drill responsibly for more oil and natural gas and (2) make a serious effort to develop alternative forms of energy.
Until we pursue both with equal fervor, we'll have high gas prices and we'll deservedly be humiliated by Saudi Arabia when they say "no." In the meantime, you can thank Udall and politicians like him for the "pain at the pump" we've heard so much about.
May 17, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
StraightTalk,
I agree totally with your conservation comments and could add a few of my own. I also don't mind a few government incentives to encourage the production and purchase of hybrids and new electric technology. Some new drilling will be necessary for both gas and oil, but I believe that conservation needs a far higher priority than it currently has. I also believe that the extraction industries need to be held absolutely accountable for clean up and restoration. If necessary, upfront bonds should be paid to guarantee proper and timely restoration. The most ecologically sensitive areas should still be avoided.
I also agree absolutely that alternatives must be developed.
I am sure Udall has played a part in higher " pain at the pump " but so have the Republicans with their narrow minded approach to both conservation and renewables. The rest of us are also to blame for wasting gas as though it had no value and would always be available in infinite quantities.
May 17, 2008
7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
ramenboy33,
Speaking as one who owns a 2006 Prius: really? I thought that the plug-in electric conversions were expensive and voided toyota's warrenty. I would love to hear more!
May 17, 2008
7:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
maukaman writes:
Pay attention now ramaboy. The democrats are also against nuclear power which leaves what? Coal to fire the power plants? No they are against that too. OK. That leaves gas & OIL to power the generating plants that power your little gas/electric car. The problem is that WE ALL WANT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.BUT IN THE SHORT TERM OIL IS THE ONLY RESOURCE THAT WILL KEEP US GOING . AND WE HAVE TO DRILL FOR MORE OIL. Wind turbines will NEVER be a serious source of power. Talk to Excel Energy for the details.
May 17, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
maukaman,
You make some good points. On the first place as I asked ramenboy: I'm not absolutely certain of the viability/feasibility of plug-in electrics as yet. But consider this: I already have a 3 kwh solar array on my roof. Were I to add 1 more kwh in capacity, I could charge the car. The problem is I would have tocharge during daylight or have an expensive, dubiously effective battery storage system to enable me to charge the car at night. The conundrum is that the technology probably exists but is too early in r+d to be practical. That brings us back to your point. We need oil. gas and coal in the meantime. That is absolutely true.
I always have to point out that there is both a supply side and demand side to commodity considerations. We can buy time for alternative energy by employing off the shelf conservation technology. I bet that the average person could shave as much as 20% off their energy consumption by changing the way they drive and spending $ 2000.00 on insulation and CFL bulbs for their homes.
May 17, 2008
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
The environmentalists, by creating administrative barriers to new oil refineries,have given big oil a monopoly. No new refineries have been built in decades. Nobody is working on improved technologies because neither the regulatory bodies nor the oil companies want them built. Only the consumers want them built.
May 18, 2008
8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Matts45 writes:
The American Government needs a complete overhaul. We are loosing our fine men and women who are fighting to keep the fat cats pockets filled with money. While the rest of us barley make it on our pay. Including the spouses of those who serve this country. Heck they can’t even help treat the men and women that come home. The V.A. dismisses them and their problems. Why are we dependent on foreign oil and why are we paying ridicules prices for oil when the majority of Colorado’s oil comes out of Wyoming? What about the stockpile of oil that the Government is sitting on. If they wanted to stop “the pain at the pump” they should utilize the reserve that we have and stop purchasing from the Saudis. That would drop the price considerably. But seeing how our genius president’s (I call him a genius because I have heard him speak) and his friends have stock in oil. Why would he release the reserves when they can make money off the blood of others? (After all George W was an oilman back in the day when he was running the Texas Rangers into the ground.) This whole administration deserves to be tried for war crimes. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? What the heck is going on in Guantanamo Bay? People are being held there with out any reason except that they are Muslim. Losing years of their lives for nothing more then there believes and their religion. Heck that is one of the main foundations this country was founded on Freedom of Religion. Doesn’t the Constitution call for the right to a speedy trial? Yet the government can detain them based on no merit but there believes? I pray that the democrats can pull this country together and right the wrongs of the current administration. The Beatles were right “All you need is Love” and no words have rang true more then John Lennon’s “War is not the Answer”!
May 18, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
The convention was inspirational. It's too bad that the Republicans have a shortage of excellent candidates, all they can do is repeat the same old mantra of 'stay the course' and don't talk to friends or enemies whether it regards energy or working with other nations to solve global problems. Our clear lack of a coalition even as the war drags on, shows a true lack of strong and wise leadership.
Mark Udall does not rule out nuclear energy if we approach it in a manner that addresses safety issues, storage, and other concerns.
The same goes for the oil and gas industries, they still refuse to say how much the proposed new regulations will cost them. At the Stakeholder meetings they could not agree to represent each other, which clearly means that they are out for their own interests. Which is of course what businesses are meant to do, but do not think for a minute that they will really hurt their profit margins unless they are required to. They will not protect the Roan Plateau and our drinking water if they are not required to. Some companies have shown a good faith effort to work with communities and environmentalists and they should be commended for that. Others just want to reap in the $$ while they can.
By the way, I was a registered Republican until the day George Bush took office.
May 18, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
ES writes:
How come Mitt Romney being Mormon was a big deal and for Udall its not even mentioned? Guess the press only gives criticisms to being Mormon if you are a Republican.
May 18, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
He's not a Mormon, some of his ancestors were. Not that it matters really.
May 18, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Actually Mitt Romney would have been a fine candidate for the Republicans. His background in business and willingness to take on healthcare were good attributes. I believe that it was the far right wing that did in his candidacy, not the Democrats or the press. He did well in Colorado because we are basically a purple state, almost evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I would have voted for McCain over Bush, but he didn't win the party's nomination when he would have truly been a good candidate. Now his whole campaign is about the past. The Democrats are younger, more visionary, and more capable of leading the next generation with diplomacy, research in energy and medicine, etc.
May 18, 2008
5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
StraightTalk writes:
Soccermom, you said "The Democrats are younger, more visionary, and more capable of leading the next generation with diplomacy, research in energy and medicine, etc."
First of all, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Here's why I think you're wrong on everything but the "younger" item. No argument there.
Diplomacy. What exactly is Obama, as President, going to do to change the minds of the worlds thugs? He can promise the world. But just how far do you think that "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions" will get you with a thug like Iranian President Ahmadinejad? Here's the view of someone (Dick Morris - an adviser to President Bill Clinton) who I believe has far more experience and wisdom in this area than either you or I do. "The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment. The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability." We've already had discussions with Ahmadinejad - all without success. Ahmadinejad would give Obama the old "rope-a-dope" and continue to work on his nuclear weapons program. And then when he actually has them, such as Kim Jung-Il does, what will Obama do? Blame Bush? Yeah, that'll really work. All Obama will do is repeat the mistakes Carter made when he was President.
Research in energy? That's a toss-up in my mind. About all Obama could do is to give alternative forms of energy more "seed money." That might work, but I wouldn't bet my last dollar on it.
Medicine. By that, I assume you mean "universal health care." Check in with Canada to see how well it works. If Canadians need something done in a hurry, they come to the U.S. If they can wait (and wait and wait), then they can have the surgery done in Canada. I think that the best thing we could do in the health care area is to make it tougher for patients to sue Doctors, Hospitals and Drug Companies. The cost of malpractice insurance is huge, and is passed on to you and me.
I believe that Obama will raise taxes, and add to the size of government (more entitlements). I believe that both things should be avoided. And yes, I know that Pres. Bush also added to the size of government, and I really disliked that.
Quite frankly, I'm not wild about Mccain either. I wish we had a "for real" three party system.
May 18, 2008
7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
StaightTalk,
You sound like the ragingly dissatisfied and semi-disenfranchised independent I am. A viable third party carved out of the "wasteland" between the two parties would do this country a world of good. I doubt I will see it my lifetime. Maybe you're younger.
May 18, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
StraightTalk writes:
Greenleaf, am I younger? Well, I'm about to turn 65 and retired. I doubt that I'll ever live to see a 3rd party candidate to get a larger percent of the vote than Perot did.
May 18, 2008
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
StraightTalk,
I'm 57 and I'd be willing to bet neither of us will see a viable third party movement. Pity that my friend!
May 18, 2008
11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Having faced cancer and heart disease I consider myself extremely fortunate to have healthcare. I cannot imagine denying anyone that simple right. A single mother with children working desperately to keep her family together while she faces breast cancer? Older folks struggling to buy groceries and perscriptions? How can you decide who should be turned away? I have heard that the healthcare system in Japan is excellent. I don't know about the situation in Canada, but we are Americans and we can make it work if we have the political fortitude to make it happen. That is what I mean about vision. I have not seen it in this Administration. I have doubts about McCain's ability to maintain the pace that is required by someone who must face huge challenges. I know that I wouldn't have the stamina dealing with some of the same health issues that he faces, and I'm a lot younger than he is.
Because a third party seems unlikely to happen anytime soon we must create change within the party that we can identify with. America is great because we are a compassionate and tolerant people. I feel like the Republicans have lost sight of that.
Negotiation doesn't necessarily mean compromising your principles or position. If you keep talking then it becomes clear to the rest of the world where the problem lies and there is strength in unity. Would another war solve anything or would it just cost us more lives? Do I feel safer with Bush/Cheney in office? When the Twin Towers were being attacked who was running the country while George Bush finished reading his story? Why didn't he put the book down immediately and take charge? Cheney was being hustled off to an underground bunker. I doubt that Barack or Hillary would have responded like that. And for heavens sake, they would never say "bring it on" while there are American lives at stake. Or tell Americans to show their support for the war effort by going shopping.
Mark Udall is a thoughtful man. He is a moderate liberal while Bob Schaffer is pretending to be a moderate while he is very, very conservative. Schaffer has been a staunch supporter of the Bush Administration so I would only expect more of the same from him.
May 19, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
You mean BOULDER LIBERAL, Mark Udall. Proposser of the Peace Department, took money from Abramoff, doesn't support 2nd Amendment, supports extremist enviro terrorists, votes against U.S. Military, wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES, etc...
Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters -- twice (RCV#424, 9/15/99; RCV#241, 6/7/00)
Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending (RCV#194, 5/18/00)
In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists (RCV#601, 10/31/03; CQ Weekly, 11/8/03)
Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004 (RCV#234, 6/14/04)
Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005 (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
In 2005, both Tom and Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
Both Tom and Mark voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004. (RCV#234, 6/14/04)
And in 2003, both Tom and Mark voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (RCV#601, 10/31/03)
Additionally, in 2003 both Tom and Mark voted against funds for body armor, armored humvees and health care for National Guard Members and Reservists. (RCV#562, 10/17/03)
On July 11, 2001, Mark Udall cosponsored H.R.2459 (107th Congress [2001-2002]). Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced this bill on July 11, 2001. The bill's title was "to establish a Department of Peace."
On April 8, 2003, Mark Udall cosponsored H.R.1673 (108th Congress [2003-2004]). Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced this bill on April 8, 2003. The bill's title? "To establish a Department of Peace."
Almost a year later, on March 9, 2004, Mark Udall announced he'd run for Senate from Colorado mere hours after Governor Bill Owens declined a run.
Eight days later, March 17, 2004, -- and almost three years after he originally signed on as a cosponsor of the bill to create a cabinet level Department of Peace -- Mark Udall withdrew his support for the bill.
In the Denver Post article, Udall's campaign manager went further in attempting to defend Udall's support for a Department of Peace by noting, "'The devil's in the details, and when you look at the legislation more carefully, there were certainly some things in there that Mark wasn't comfortable with,' Melanson said." (Denver Post, 12/03/07)