"While it was not popular with some in my own party or with the Bush Administration at the time, I authored legislation to increase the troop-strength and division size of our Army because I recognize that we must have a larger and better equipped Army to meet our national security needs."

Mark Udall was a vocal opponent of the USA Patriot Act because he viewed the legislation as a threat to our civil liberties and freedom as American citizens.

However, he is a firm supporter of our troops and any effort to strengthen our national security (so long as it retains Constitutional integrity.) I realize that "Constitutional integrity" is up to debate between a given party's interpretation, yet I think it's important to consider Udall's backing legislation to expand Army division in both size and strength when evaluating his stance on national security.

Our national security is hinged upon the resources, training, and strength of our armed forces. Udall is committed to this end while "focusing specifically on our military preparedness, diplomatic efforts, the security of our borders, civil defense, and energy security."

Admitting mistakes is not a trait commonly associated with politicians. However, in his statement regarding education, Udall admits that his vote for No Child Left Behind was not one that he would give again.

Udall: In 2001, I voted for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act because I felt it was an important bipartisan step toward the establishment of higher academic standards and accountability. Unfortunately, I believe it must be acknowledged that NCLB has fallen short of our expectations.

In an attempt to fix the damage caused by NCLB, Udall introduced the CLASS ACT which would provide more adequate funding and better instruction to meet both student and faculty requirements.

I prefer Udall in this election, primarily based on his stance against haphazard oil shale exploration with technology that hasn't been proven to do anything other than harm the environment.

The two Senate candidates for the state of Colorado met head to head this Saturday for their fifth debate in Grand Junction and put some more fuel on top of what is already amounting to be one of the more fiery campaigns for the Senate this year.

The debate was an exhibit of how aggressive the mudslinging between Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R) has become and offers voters a glimpse of what more is to come before November.

While they traded jabs regarding known and lesser known controversies between the two of them (ie. Schaffer's trip to the Northern Mariana Islands funded by jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Udall's authorization of a bill that would have allowed American oil companies to drill near Cuba, which would offer a boost to the current Communist regime,) the debate highlighted each candidates positions on issues directly important to the voters of Colorado, namely energy, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

For his part, Udall came out with the strongest last word when each candidate was asked to state three things that he would have voted on differently than the incumbent, Wayne Allard (R), should they take the Senate seat.

While Schaffer claimed he couldn't think of anything in particular he would have done differently than Allard, Udall quickly responded that he would have voted against the war in Iraq; he would have voted for the Federal Renewable Electricity Standard; and he would have voted in support of middle class tax cuts rather than the Bush tax cuts for higher income brackets.

One of Udall's most important issues (both ofr Colorado and on a personal level) is health care reform. This stagnant economy and negative job market has left many Coloradans without sufficient coverage, and many families without coverage at all.

Udall has a plan to reform Children's health care, a most important endeavor, and, even more often looked over, prenatal health care. His comprehensive plan would also put a larger portion of the federal budget towards health tax credits for the low-income and uninsured.

Mark Udall is leading his Republican rival in the Colorado Senate race by an 8 percentage points according a recent poll released by Suffolk University.

Yet, the real issue is the fact that the same report shows that nearly 22% of the Colorado voters participating are still undecided. Environmental, economic, and worker's rights issues are still significant factors determining the independent vote. Expect to see these two candidates make stronger stands and attacks on these issues in future debates and press conferences.

Udall on Immigration

In an MSNBC interview, Mark Udall states at about the 3:07 mark his general position on immigration.

“We need to reinforce our security on the borders, and then provide a temporary legal path for people who are here. Bring them out of the shadows. I think it's a common sense approach. John McCain supports it. We support it. Barack Obama supports it.“

Udall has a significant voting record behind this position. He has cosponsored or voted for the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 (SAVE) (HR 4088), the Immigration Security and Efficiency Enhancement Act of 2003 (HR 1464), the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2008 (HR 2638), the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and illegal immigration Control Act of 2005 (HR 4437), and the Border Tunnel Protection Act of 2006 (HR 4830).

When Tom Brokaw asks about sending illegal immigrants back to Mexico, Udall answers, “It would really hurt [Colorado’s and New Mexico’s] economies and that’s why it’s unrealistic.”

Udall Supports Guns But Wants to Reduce Gun Violence

Columbine still evokes reactions from Colorado citizens. Where does Udall stand on guns?

“I believe the 2nd amendment protects an individual’s rights to own firearms,“ answers Udall in a question about where he stands on guns in the video below. However, he is against gun violence. He supports Project Exile, which the NRA supports. The program attempts to reduce gun violence. He states, “I do believe that fire arms should be taken out of the hands of children and criminals.” And he attacks Bob Schaffer for voting against a bill that he claims would have taken semi-automatic weapons away from children.

Udall: Low Interest Rates and Pell Grants Make College Affordable

In this video, Udall addresses how to cope with the rising costs of college education. “The way we make a difference at the federal level is lower interest rates for students and make more Pell Grants money available.” He attacks his opponent for voting against these methods.

He has a substantial voting record promising these approaches. He has voted for or co-sponsored the College Student Relief Act of 2007 and the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, H.R. 2669.

How Udall Will Fund Alternative Energy

The environment has received more attention this year than in any before. Yet the economy may put a wrench in the plans of environmentalists. How would Udall fund new technology? Udall answers in the video below, “The way we pay for these new tax credits and investments in a whole new energy economy is first and foremost redirect all the tax breaks and subsidies that go to the oil companies today into theses new technologies.”

He attacks his opponent for being oil and gas executive. He frames the energy policy as an American bipartisan issue that could lead to a better environment, energy independence, and a growing economy. Eastern Colorado’s wind industry would particularly benefit from a new direction in energy policy.

Udall: Against Drilling

This attack ad funded by the NRSC, claims that Mark Udall is against offshore drilling, more domestic exploration, and expanding energy production. Without the dramatic imagery and sound, Udall would largely agree with this portrayal. He states on his campaign website,

“For Colorado's sake, I have fought efforts by the Bush Administration to open up some of our special lands (like the un-drilled portion of the Roan Plateau) to more development because not every place that can support oil drilling should be drilled in my view. There are places we ought to conserve for future generations.”

Further, he states, “we cannot drill our way to energy security.”

It's very simple. The Republican party got us to where we are today- disgraced abroad, displaced at home. The economy is in the tank, the environment is in peril, and federal support for education is a joke. I live in Colorado, and I am excited at the thought of having two senators with a little "d" by their name. And, from the amount of lawn signs in my area (Wash Park, Denver) I have many neighbors who feel the same.

Former Democratic Congressman and now Senate Candidate for state of Colorado Mark Udall, as Big Iron stated, was opposed to the Patriot Act however, a bill introduced into the House by Democratic Congressman from New York Gary Ackerman has 273 co-sponsors and Mr. Udall is one of them.

This bill may come off as peaceful by many political officials when discussed in the media but just like the Iraq resolutions throughout the 90s and earlier this decade, this is a drumbeat for War with Iran. In 1998 the Clinton Administration had the Iraq Liberation Act passed, which made the key United States Foreign Policy to remove Saddam Hussein.

When tensions exude between Iran and the United States and war breaks out Mr. Mark Udall will be one of the instigators of this war.

Again, in the case of Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R), we see a stark contrast in two candidates' ideas about best to address the predicament on Wall Street.

Schaffer (who is working hard to align himself with Sen. Wayne Allard) opposes government intervention and views any federal interference as "the biggest problem in general."

Schaffer's position with regard to tighter regulations agrees with Allard's claim that "Only the rarest of circumstances warrant the federal government or taxpayers simply absorbing the risk in the investing equation. … Rough times in the financial markets are not necessarily the result of bad government and Congress should resist the temptation of sweeping reactionary legislation, which generally has a poor track record of actually addressing underlying problems.”

On the other hand, Udall has endorsed the tighter federal regulations and will back any federal action to curb the decline in our economy.

He notes, "“We need a new approach that will re-establish some ground rules in the marketplace to protect Americans’ investments in the economy and restore their confidence in the financial markets.”

Regardless, both statements from Allard and Udall are dependent on the essential and all-hallowed factor of consumer confidence in the American market. For me personally, the most frustrating thing is that we have only time to tell which position (tighter regulation or no regulation) will prove to be best approach to our economic woes.

In recent debate between the two Colorado Senate candidates, Bob Schaffer (R) defended himself against Udall's argument that he had at agreed with Newt Gingrich's proposal to cut Medicare funding and let the program "wither on the vine."

Udall threw the first punch (of course) saying, "It's Congressman Schaffer who's called Medicare 'socialist' and agreed with Newt Gingrich's idea that it can wither on the vine."

Knowing that having his name lumped in with any proposal to cut Medicare funds (much less one made by Gingrich) is way too risky to ignore, especially in our current political predicament, Schaffer shot back, ""The notion that I ever suggested it should go away is preposterous. You know that."

The issue is still on the burner, along with the bailout (the nation's current top political priority it seems) and Schaffer and Udall have two more debates scheduled this weekend for Colorado voters to tune into:

The debate briefly detailed here will be aired on KWGN Channel 2 tomorrow September 27th at 8pm.

The two candidates will again appear for a live debate Sunday morning on Meet the Press at 9am.

TONIGHT OCTOBER 6th at 7pm 9NEWS and the University of Denver will broadcast the "Decision 2008: Senate Showdown" between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer as they compete for Sen. Wayne Allard's (R) seat in the U.S. Senate.

The debate will be held at the June Swaner Gates Concert Hall in the Newman Center for the Performing Arts and will be aired tonight at 7pm on 9NEWS.

The debate is open to the public and you can also submit questions for the candidates (which may be used in the debate) to debates@9news.com.

When all the talk about Joe the Plumber started up, it brought to mind a similar incident where Bob Schaffer used an ordinary citizen for political gain, but unlike our pal Joe, the citizen Schaffer used was an unwilling participant. When Schaffer was a Representative for the House of Rep. from Fort Collins, he decided to make some hay out of naming Post Offices after ordinary citizens facing life's "extraordinary challenges". He pushed through a bill in congress naming the local post office after Barney Apodaca, who did not want that to happen, and asked for it to be taken back. You can read about it in the humorous book Bush-Whacked, Chronicles of Government Stupidity (available on amazon)- it's on page 67. Just another example of how out of touch the GOP really is with the common man.

Udall talks about health care for the uninsured and the underinsured, but what about citizens in Colorado who are victims of Rocky Flats? Officially, according to the government and ISIS, the nuclear waste and mess from the Rocky Flats power plant has been cleaned up and the buildings removed. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth and Udall seems to have no idea!

Coloradans are upset about the lack of funding for health care for them and are still suffering from the radiation and toxins.

IS Udall ignoring them the way he is choosing to ignore funding for our troops coming home?

Supporting the military is one thing that Bob Shaffer has a plan to do with great zeal. He has voted to support the military and war spending in Iraq, improve education opportunities and funding for US soldiers and support the military's presence in Colorado. He wants to increase the education credit for soldiers newly discharged and insure that all of the schooling opportunities promised will be afforded to returning troops.

Shaffer worked to spearhead an extra $15.1 million worth of federal funding for a new Mobilization and Training equipment site at Fort Carson, too.

Udall is one the congressional endorsements that Obama has picked up. That means he will be one of those most liable to become disappointed at what Obama would actually do if elected president. Schaffer would not be my favorite choice but has some experience in the House of Representatives and showed signs of supporting term limits against the wishes of his own party.

In an interesting analysis of recent polls regarding the Colorado Senate race, the Hill Research Consultants showed a 41 to 38 Robert Shaffer (R) lead over his Democratic rival Mark Udall, which is nearly a 4 point margin error from the Rasmussen results and the Mason-Dixon outlier.

Yet, the Hill Research Consultant poll was conducted by known members of the Shaffer campaign and (according to the source) is intended to provide Shaffer supporters "with guarded optimism."

Nonetheless, each one of the polls points to a significant variable that is more prominent in this election than perhaps it's been since the '72 Presidential Election: the youth vote.

2008 has already panned out to be a historic election year by sheer number. Yet, in this particular Senate race, it will be interesting to see the turnout and/or influence of the "new" vote on the outcome. As it is, I'd argue that Shaffer holds more of a lead than the polls suggest in that he carries with his candidacy a consistent vote that bar-none will be at the booth when the time comes.

Udall's voter turnout seems to be up in the air, but not underestimated.

Robert Shaffer is most definitely a conservative leader with his eye on education reform. His parents both worked in the educational system, and Shaffer himself has five children. He supports more federal funding for school related programs, raised teacher pay (H.R. 1995, RC Vote # 320, 7/20/99) and supports federal giving for children "trapped" in unsafe school environments (H.R. 1, RC Vote #135).

Also struck by No Child Left Behind, Colorado is hurting for reform to help bring actual progression into classrooms and leave behind falsified numbers. Shaffer believes that the state should not have to shell out extra cash that it doesn't have for better schooling but that it is the duty of the federal government to provide the funds to insure that Colorado's children get a more than satisfactory education.

Isn't that wonderful?

Bob Shaffer is fed up with the extra spending Colorado taxpayers do to keep the Washington Bureaucracy happy. He insists that people step forward and become better educated to know about the issues on Washington and dictate where their money goes. In order to help his state get a better foothold in government, Shaffer will balance the budget, force Washington to become more accountable for their spending, press biennial budgeting to prevent waste temptation or out-of-pocket expenses for Americans, and stop automatic pay raises for Congress.

What is Udall doing? He wants to cut funding in the wrong places by voting to cut funding for the war. Shaffer supports our troops and will work with the government to support them. Udall doesn't seem to have the military's interests at heart. How is Udall going to change the conflict? By cutting funding from our military where our troops still need it.

Congressman Udall has had John Kerry's endorsement since January. This should be unwanted by more Democrats in light of several of Kerry's past election performances, his Skull and Bones membership, and some level of confidence that Jeff Beatty can unseat him this year. Udall voted against beginning to withdraw our troops from Iraq in 90 days.