Mark Hillman: Udall's U-turn on domestic drilling

Advertisement

Mark Udall's message to Colorado voters is crystal clear: Just tell me want you want to hear, and I'll say it.

Here's a congressman who built his reputation as an uncompromising environmentalist, who consistently has opposed domestic energy exploration, and who has blocked construction of new refineries to make American energy supplies more secure.

Now, Udall wants us to think he's suddenly seen the light.

"We've got to produce our own oil and gas, right here in our country," he says in a new commercial paid for by his U.S. Senate campaign.

Just what Colorado needs: another politician who will sell his soul to attain higher office.

Over the years, Udall's record on domestic energy production has been much more dogmatic than pragmatic, more extremist than centrist. He's voted to:

- Block drilling for American oil in Alaska or off shore at least nine times.

- Deny tax deductions for production of U.S. oil and gas, thereby putting American companies at a financial disadvantage versus their competitors in the Middle East, Russia and South America.

- Declare oil cartels like OPEC to be in violation of U.S. antitrust law, though most high school seniors - not to mention Members of Congress - are smart enough to know our laws do not apply to foreign oil companies.

- Oppose making abandoned military bases available for construction of new oil refineries, oblivious to the reality no new American oil refineries have been constructed since 1976, increasing our dependence on foreign refineries.

The Denver Post described Udall's U-turns as "sharp turnarounds for a man who has made the expansion of renewable energy a cornerstone of his career." The Politico, a Washington, D.C.-based journal, called the flip-flop "a clear shift from his previous opposition to such measures."

So, Colorado voters who are fed up with $4-a-gallon gasoline should ask themselves: Why does Mark Udall now claim to support domestic production of oil and gas? And does he truly mean it?

The most obvious answer to the first question is polling. In June and July, Udall held as much as a 10-point lead over his opponent, former Congressman Bob Schaffer. That lead evaporated in two more recent surveys.

A Rasmussen poll shows that 65 percent of Coloradans want to make increasing energy production the top priority over reducing energy consumption.

As to the sincerity of Udall's conversion, only the commercial paid for by his senate campaign backs him up. All other evidence suggests that this is a poll-driven conversion of political convenience.

Udall's own campaign Web site dwells on developing wind and solar power but says little about developing new sources of oil and gas. Instead, the Udall Web site falls back on old liberal canards, such as "we cannot drill our way to energy security" and "not every place that can support oil drilling should be drilled."

That message falls flat with Coloradans who like the idea of renewable energy but also want affordable and reliable oil and gas in the meantime.

If Udall were serious about developing domestic energy, wouldn't he have demanded a vote on his own bill before allowing Congress to take its summer vacation? Instead, Udall was campaigning in Colorado when a vote to consider a genuine domestic energy bill fell short by just one vote.

Finally, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that Udall's wife spent 20 years working for Sierra Club, whose webpage features a petition congratulating Speaker Nancy Pelosi for adjourning without bringing oil exploration to a vote.

Mark Udall hasn't changed his stripes. That's great news for his Boulder liberal base, but it's bad news for Coloradans who want affordable gas prices.

Mark Hillman is a former Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate, a former Colorado State Treasurer, and is an honorary member of the Conservative Leadership Council of Northwest Colorado.

Comments

Fred Duckels 5 years, 10 months ago

MH Home run! Can you imagine an athletic team. half of which held the liberal philosophy. Now lets assume that the conservatives have won the "white house" starting spots and the liberals are on the bench. The liberals would do everything in their power to wreck the team so they could play. Now lets reverse the situation ie. the Clinton years. Clinton was smart enough to work with the conservatives on legislation such as welfare reform. long a Republican goal. Bosnia received bipartisan support. Bush tried to rework Social Security. Long overdue, but the liberals were not about to let him have the credit. Now let the liberals get in the white house and the unions. trial lawyers. and environmentalists"mostly for political purposes" combined with a congressional majority would have a field day. Maybe we could join the EU! Next we could downsize the military and depend on the UN, using diplomacy of course. Al Queda would be free to resume target practice. I don't know if Iraq was a good decision or not. I may not know in my lifetime. I didn't buy the reasons for going in but our presence in the Middle East may well be necessary to ensure order. Any oil supply interruption could put the planet in chaos. If Bush allowed this to happen. then the libaerals would have every right to take his scalp.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.