President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 17, 2007 07:46 PM UTC

Udall Releases Statement on 2008

  • 64 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Democratic Rep. Mark Udall released a statement yesterday in regards to his plans for 2008:

Congressman Mark Udall (D-Eldorado Springs), released the following statement regarding his plans for 2008:

“Senator Allard’s announcement yesterday renewed a lot of interest in my plans for 2008.  It’s no secret that I would like to represent the people of the State of Colorado in the U.S. Senate.  In 2005, I made clear that my intentions were to run for the U.S. Senate in 2008, and my intentions haven’t changed.  A formal announcement will come at the appropriate time and place in Colorado, and I am also putting together the strongest team for a successful statewide race. 

“We face some real challenges as a nation and right now I have a job to do in the U.S. House.  Whenever I’ve wanted another job or more responsibility, I’ve always worked harder in my current job.  My constituents on both sides of the Continental Divide elected me to represent their views in the nation’s capital, and I am going to work hard to be the best representative that I can be.  We’ll have plenty of time for politics and campaigns later.”

Comments

64 thoughts on “Udall Releases Statement on 2008

  1. He never stops working hard for his constituents to go off and campaign, like some other Colorado Reps we have who spend their time in Florida, Iowa, Arizona, and who knows where else for their political ambitions. Mark is here for the people of Colorado.

    1. I appreciate an elected official who is actually focusing on governance.  The elections are over, we have a couple years till another go-round, and some serious issues to deal with.  I am looking for some leadership and effective policy. 

  2. I’m sure he did this to make sure you all in bloggersville DON’T keep saying “What’s Mark up to?  Why hasn’t he announced?  There must be some mysterious machinations going on!”

  3. As Udall notes, he “announced” in 2005.  He’s “announced” some more several times since then.  But some people don’t seem to get it: Udall is running for, and will likely win, the Senate seat being vacated by Wayne Allard in 2008.

    So here’s another “announcement” – stay tuned for the official one.

      1. My vote is for Schaffer if he runs.  The scenario is so much different than it was in 04′.  Bob, please let me know when and where I send the first donation to your winning Senate campaign.

        1. since in 2004 the far-right Republicans like Bob Schaffer had not yet been soundly rejected by voters.

          My bet is Schaffer runs and beats McInnis in the primary, then loses in Both Ways Bob proportions to Senator Udall.

        1. You must not know Bob Schaffer.  To even say something like that shows your ignorance about Colorado politics.  Bob probably has more integrity and honesty in his little finger than any elected official in Colorado today.  Good luck with your idea of skeletons.

          1.   He does not set my “gaydar” off.  I don’t know whether any of my “fraternity brothers” who post in here get any vibes from Bob Schaffer.  If so, please share……..

            1.   While I don’t believe Schaffer is gay, I do know that he has opposed the campaign to encourage the use of condoms by gay men. 
                When he was in the state Senate in the early to mid ’90’s, there was a “safer sex” display booth at the state Capitol which contained condoms.  Schaffer had a little hissy fit and trashed the booth when he saw the condoms.
                Ironically, there is a group of gay men who are into “barebacking,” that is, the obviously unsafe practice of having sex without a condom.
                If Schaffer runs for the U.S. Senate, perhaps we see a group called “Barebackers for Schaffer.”

              1. Well, seeing as that would only play well in the gay community I’m not too worried about such a campaign.  The last thing most Americans want to think about is gay sex of any kind–bareback or saddled(?).

  4. Udall is obviously parsing his words quite carefully. The guy backed out with his tail between his legs in 2004 and will do so again. A safe seat is his for life and his pension does not vest unless he serves one more term.

    1. When you officially declare your candidacy, you have to file paperwork, tax reports, etc..  Udall doesn’t need to do that right now, and it’ll save him the hassle by making the official announcement at a later date.

      Hence the word parsing.  It’s not really a question of whether or not he’ll run – he will.

    1. What’s with this nickname?  It doesn’t alliterate, and it doesn’t seem to point to a character flaw in Mark.  I.e. it’s no “Both-ways Bob.”

      What do others think – is this effective or not so much?

      1. but many a hard right GOPer likes something snappy to say in order to slag their Dem opponents so we’ll probably get to hear them bleating it for the next two years.

      2. Latte Mark, D-Boulder.  His shills are trying to parse reality by substituting El Dorado for Boulder, but you can bet Republicans will constantly remind everyone that Latte Mark, D-Boulder does, indeed, hale from that town with its own foreign policy, The Peoples Republic of Boulder.

      3. It’s almost as bad as “wrong Way Ritter” that some were posting a couple of months ago.  It only seems to roll off the tongue if you’re Barbara Walters.

        Come up with something truly catchy (and meaningful) and you might even find the blue-staters using it.

    2. Uh, isn’t a vacate seat open to Libertarians, Greens, and anyone else?  Why do you see this as a Republican event?  And why shouldn’t he remind people he will be a contender?  Good PR prior to paperwork being filed.

      1. I see where he’s introduced bills for the government to take over all the oil fields, coal mines, Microsoft, the telco’s…….

        That’s socialism, dude. 

  5. Is flaming out.  He’s trying for a press grab.  He’s seen John Elway, Scott McInnis, Tom Tancredo, and Bob Schaffer– all Republicans and all gracing Colorado’s headlines.  He’s looking pathetic already and he hasn’t even announced yet.

    1. Spinning that hard?  I’m queasy just standing over here.

      Here’s a good quote Representative Udall gave when he was interviewed here at CoPols in 2005 and asked about representing Boulder:

      In the end, no matter where we get our mail delivered, we are all Coloradans and we are all in this together. We need to reach beyond labels and work together to meet the challenges we face. Besides, I often tell folks that Boulder and Colorado Springs are remarkably similar communities; they are both nestled in the mountains, both rely on a high tech economy and share University of Colorado campuses. The only difference I’ve ever noticed is that Boulder sometimes has its own foreign policy.

      [cue rimshot]

        1. One sends a middle of the roader to Congress, the other sends a total crackpot.  One embraces all religions, the other shuns all but one.  One embraces new ideas, let the chips fall where they may, the other is scared shitless of them.

          CD2 is a lot bigger than just Boulder, don’t forget.

          1. That’s why he keep getting voted in by the Boulder crazies.  I fully admit that Schaffer is irrefutably conservative.  Too bad the same intellectual honesty doesn’t extend to the left. 

            1. I looked at Mark’s positions and a bit of his record and I just can’t see him being far left.  I would define the latter as government control of the means of production, blanket gun elimination (which I wouldn’t mind, but I am a man of laws, and I know what the laws – 2nd amendment – are.)

              CD2, don’t forget, is a lot more than Boulder.  Good conservative mountain communities, too.  I can’t say what the voting results are there, precinct by precinct, but he obviously doesn’t have those people pissed off at him. 

              Middle of the road, dude.

    1. Is Latte Mark, and that’s not much.

      What are you going to say about Mark Udall?  He doesn’t seem to come with the baggage that McInnis has.  I guess some winger religious nut could go after the well-known fact that the Udalls are Mormon.

      Maybe someone at TTR could write up a piece “linking” him to Warren Jeffs and his merry band of federal fraudsters; they’re both Mormon (kinda) after all.  Wouldn’t have a single grain of truth to it, but then, it *is* TTR.

          1. Colorado is a fundamentally conservative state.  “Colorado values” are conservative values: small government and traditional moral values.  If you have any evidence to suggest that we have somehow strayed from these values by all mean let’s see it. 

            1. That more people voted for the marijuana initiative than they did for Bob Beauprez. If nothing that is interesting.

              Since I am a liberal, elucidate me as to what traditional moral values are.

              1. I’m afraid I don’t see your point.  Beauprez was a terrible candidate who ran a forgettable campaign.  The potheads did a fine job campaigning and got the votes of plenty of Republicans weary of governemental regulation.  I voted “no” on Amendment 44 but I see why fellow conservatives disagreed.  Their position is much more honorable than Taverd’s core consitutency of losers, college kids, and liberals. 

                Traditional moral values are the lofty heritage we get from the Bible.  The Judeo-Christian value system is endemic to the country and particularly the Heartland–of which Colorado is proudly a part.  These values (I prefer the term ‘virtues’) are micro-issues like honesty, chastity and respecting parents, to macro-public policy issues like abortion, marriage, and pornography.  Lest I seem like the usual heartless monster of a Bible-thumping hack let me say that charity and care for the poor is a major part of the Judeo-Christian system.  That’s why, as Arthur Brooks points out in his latest book, Republicans (who are overwhelmingly more religious than Democrats) give twice as much charity each year.  It’s just that I think faith communities do a much better job aiding the poor than the government.  That’s not just my opinion.  From alcohol addiction to homelessness, it is evidential that private and faith-based groups do a better job with the downtrodden than the local Welfare or Social Security office.

                I’m 83% sure that Coloradans, generally, agree with me on that.  They may have differences with a little thing here or there but Judeo-Christian values ARE Colorado values.

                1. From my perspective, contributing to your local church is a very self-serving charitable gift.  98% of the donation will benefit only the church patrons.  I would estimate 2% of the funds, goes to non-church related community events and organizations.  Therefore, it is quite biased to say that R’s are more charitable.

                2. IMHO, the best charity I’ve run across is the Habitat For Humanity, which is not a faith-based group (though it does receive a lot of support from church groups).  Faith-based charities have had their share of scandal and mismanagement, just as secular charities have.  In short, there is little difference between The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and The Salvation Army when it comes to administration – both have done good things, and both have screwed up.  BTW, my guess is that with the combination of Gates and Warren Buffett’s monies, secular charity has recently taken a significant lead over faith-based contributions.

                  Similarly, it is my experience that Democrats have a tendency to give more of their time, while Republicans tend to give more of their money.  If you poke around and see who’s actually manning the soup kitchens and education centers, you’ll find a lot of those damned bleeding-heart liberals.

                  BTW, take your “Judeo-Christian” home; Jesus taught us to lead by deed, not by bragging of our superiority.

                  1. From their philisophy statement:

                    “At its foundation, Habitat for Humanity is a Christian ministry. While we do not require either our homeowners or our volunteers to share our faith in Jesus Christ, as an organization we base our work upon biblical principles and we remain dependent upon the grace of God to accomplish our mission.”

                    Seems pretty faith based to me, but I agree they are a very well run and respected charity.

                    And finally, people who give money are giving their time, as it takes time to earn money.  I respect people of good will regardless of how they choose to give.

        1. Like a very strong environmental record?  VERY important to Coloradans.  Pro-gun (but not a whack job) like those Colorado hunters?  Introducing legislation to help family farms financially and open the doors to farm based alternative energy? 

          Wow, those sure must be NYC values, huh?

          1. I think those are absolutely, and uniquely, Colorado values.  We have a proud history of conservationism that I’m proud of.  Both Scott McInnis and Wayne Allard–two conservative Republicans–have been instrumental in the conservation of Colorado’s treasured wilderness.

            Colorado is also pro-gun.  Very much so.  I’ll disgregard your insignificant “whack job” comment as it has no bearing on the discussion.  We cherish our 2nd amendment rights. 

            Alternative energy?  Sure!  I’d argue that we are a hub for energy resources–renewable and fossil fuel.  We lead the country in innovation so I see no reason why we shouldn’t lead the process to ween ourselves away from Saudi oil.  But it’s not the government’s job to incentivize this innovation.  That’s where Macchiato Mark is wrong.

            1. So, LM IS representative of Colorado Values!  Those items I mentioned (taken from his web site) hardly qualify him as some screaming liberal, do they?

              Colorado is neither consistently conservative nor liberal.  It is still classicly western, sort of populists (that’s how the Dems get in), far less predictable than many other states.  I’m talking the big picture of over 130 years.

              1. He received an ‘F’ from the NRA.  Hardly pro-gun IMHO.  On the environment he was solid…a little too solid.  There is a big difference between the Western conservative’s conservationist perspective and that of Western liberals.  Liberals don’t just hug trees.  They want to squeeze businesses so tightly they kill ’em.  I’m all about a robust conservation of federal lands.  But squeezing logging companies and particularly businesses is the wrong way to do it.  So is focusing primary on renewable energy while voting ‘no’ on ANWAR.  We need to be self-reliant for energy.  Ultimately we’ll need to convert over to alternative sources.  But in the mean time–while we do the research–you can’t pretend like we’re still not reliant upon fossil fuels.  Macchiato’s Mark’s plan is to have us still be tool’s for the Saudi princes while he pursues his pipedream of Smart Cars and ethanol factories by 2007. 

                1. The NRA gives “F”s to virtually every Democrat, no matter their position on guns.

                  ANWR (note spelling) is a losing proposition to everyone except the oil companies and Alaskan residents.  It doesn’t contain enough oil to be terribly useful, won’t deliver it for most of a decade, and will require the destruction of some very sensitive terrain to get it.  We’re better off tapping the oil shale here in CO, and that’s not a proven winner, either.

                  In the meantime, our dependence on fossil fuels is causing a green revolution among the ranchers of Wyoming, eastern Colorado, and Garfield/Mesa counties.  People don’t like it when fossil fuel extraction industries ruin their farmland.

                  Would you do me a favor and run off and go find the real *HGLQ persona?  Thanks.

                  1. Is that kind of like, Will the real Has Godlike please stand up, please stand up?

                    But you’re post was remarkably sober.  I’m very glad you want to tap the oil shale here.  Shall we tap it together?

                    The Wall Street Journal actually had a piece a while back about the NRA and how it actually endorses some 13% of Democrats n races–including our very own John Salazar.  It wants to avoid the image of being a partisan organization. There are many many Democrats out there who value the 2nd Amendment as much as Republicans.  Macchiato Mark is not one of them.

                    1. Oil shale is not a winning extractive under current conditions.  I don’t want to open it up, because no-one’s proven that the total expenses don’t outweigh the total benefits.

                      For that matter, you can’t prove to me that the total expenses of MidEast oil don’t overwhelm the total benefits.  Add in the cost of military actions, military escorts, etc. and the only reason we’re still using oil at all is because no-one’s got the capital to go head-on with the oil companies in a startup war with new fuels.

                      Taking the $13b in oil subsidies away from the record-profitable oil industry (the same one that constantly cries about not being able to afford new refineries…) is overdue.  Spending it on the accelerated development and deployment of production biofuel facilities similar to Green Power, the UNH Algae plans, and Los Angeles’ Stirling Solar plant is the fastest way to resolve the MidEast conflict: remove the need for Western interest in the region.

                    2. The NRA “upgraded” Udall to a D in 2006.

                      I guess the long and short of it is, if you want to buy a gun without a background check, and think that gun manufacturers should be held to a lesser standard than other product manufacturers in lawsuits, Udall has some significant strikes against him.

                      Personally, I’m a bit more Jeffersonian on guns.  As an author once commented, “there are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.  Please use in that order.”  But I take issue with the NRA and others who instantly think someone’s bad for guns when they pass a law restricting them in any way.

      1. I’m not saying anyone has a legitimate negative story about Udall and I don’t know enough about him to say if he has anything to report (or distort).  I couldn’t help but notice that there are two stories about aspiring Senate candidates with completely different angles. 

        Call me the Colorado Confidential of Bizarro World.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

62 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!