Pearce's energy stance closely follows that of the Bush Administration. This means Pearce is more about relying on foreign oil, finding new oil sources and NOT wanting to pursue alternative energy sources. Pearce has reinforced his stance with his voting record.

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)

Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)

Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)

Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)

Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)

In the traditionally conservative West, can Tom Udall and his cousin Mark Udall really win the Senate seats of vacating Republicans? Carl Hulse of the New York Times wrote an interesting article about this topic. The Udalls come from a long line of conservationists, and with today's high gas prices, their Republican opponents are trying to use this history against them. Steve Pearce correlates consumer woes to the Democrats' resistance to expanding oil drilling. Udall returns the criticism by pointing out Republicans' historical resistance to mpg standards. “We are not opposed to good sound development, but there cannot be carelessness and recklessness in the use of resources,” said Tom Udall. Follow the link below for Hulse's full article.

Tom Udall is a strong supporter of the environment, and his New Mexico House voting record provides some tangible proof.

Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)

Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

In a poll today, Tom Udall is leading Steve Pearce, 49%-41%. The keys to Udall’s lead are in his courtship of Independent, moderate and Hispanic voters. Udall has almost lapped Pearce in his support among Hispanics. Hispanics make up nearly 40% of the state’s voters and traditionally they have been registered as Democrats but in the past have crossed party lines. For example in 2004 George W. was able to court the Hispanic vote in New Mexico since a large percentage stood behind the president in a time of war. One of the biggest issues for Hispanic voters so far has been the Iraq War. As a NPR piece by Jennifer Ludden points out “New Mexico has four military bases. Between active duty and the National Guard, it can seem like just about everyone here has served in the military or has a family member who has.” Tom Udall’s strong position against the Iraq War clearly has given him solid ground in this demographic.

Academically, it is evident, although argued in some quarters, that Udall is more qualified for the challenges, having had an invigorating time studying, reading and practicing the noble law profession. He was in the famous UK's Cambridge University where he left with a Bachelor of Law degree as a foundational degree while Pearce on his own part, started off with a degree in economics at the New Mexico University. It would be an understatement to state that a good understanding of the law would come handy as a potent tool in the Senate for any would-be-senator serving in the Senate of the United States of America, that Tom Udall has.

Legislation in the lower house usually gives an indication of the challenges at the Senate. A feather to Udall's cap is that he has spent far more time in the lower house than Pearce. While Udall has been in the house since 1999, Pearce got to the house in 2003 although we need to ask how far how well?

If anyone else was originally confused by the number of Udalls running for a Senate seat in Washington don’t feel too bad. Apparently Tom Udall’s opponent had the same problem. A month ago Pearce fired a press release criticizing Tom Udall for proposing an amendment preventing oil shale leases. This resulted in a great Scooby Doo-like moment where Pearce had to be told that it was Tom Udall’s cousin Mark Udall who actually inked the amendment.

Tom Udall has pointed the finger to the Bush Administration for the gas price inflation. He has openly stated that this issue will cause instability the United States. This is all information that anybody who watches the news would be qualified to publicly stated. He has not illustrated what method(s) he would use. What makes him Senate material?

Check out this clip of Tom Udall explaining his position on Iraq. In this clip Udall explains that we should not be policing the streets of Baghdad and we need to begin to redeploy our troops within 60 days to refocus our efforts on Afghanistan. Udall voted against the war from the very beginning claiming it was a detour in the war in Afghanistan where our national security issues were at stake. It is going to be hard for Steve Pearce to attack Udall’s record on Iraq since it has not wavered at all since the Iraqi Resolution vote in 2002. Pearce will likely try to move the conversation away from foreign policy and focus on New Mexico’s struggling economy.

In the home state of Los Alamos Laboratories, the need for nuclear weapons directly means jobs. As a result, both candidates have been very careful to argue against any cut in the nuclear weapon budget. Tom Udall recently was the only nay vote against a House Appropriations Subcommittee budget proposal that included cuts in nuclear weapons that would have affected two of New Mexico’s weapons labs.

The Human Rights Campaign wholeheartedly endorses Tom Udall because he "supports key HRC legislation such as the fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and strong hate crimes prevention legislation." His Republican opponent Steve Pearce has never been in HRC's favor, so HRC is actively campaigning for Udall.

Tom Udall has a perfect record when it comes to supporting reproductive rights for women. He has a 100% pro-choice score with NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). A few examples of Tom Udall's voting record on this topic:

- In January 2007, he voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

- In May 2005, he voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

- In April 2005, he voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

- In February 2003, he voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

- In September 2002, he voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

- In April 2000, he voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions.

One of the clear differences between Tom Udall and Steve Pearce comes in the energy debate. Udall authored an initiative that “requires electric utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from alternative energy sources.” Udall continues to argue for investing in alternative energies like “wind, solar, and geothermal power.”

While Steve Pearce does acknowledge that we need to develop renewable energy, he argues that no renewable energy can “replace our reliance on traditional sources of energy such as oil and natural gas.” Pearce goes further to advocate that Nuclear power is a necessary part of this country’s future and that we should be investing in more new refineries.

Steve Pearce may be trying to convince voters that Tom Udall is partially responsible for the downturn of the US economy, but consumer woes that Americans are suffering from would not be eased by lifting the ban on offshore drilling. According to a Boston Globe report, industry analysts argue that it would be ten years or more before oil companies could even begin exploration for additional domestic oil sources. Even then, the effect upon the economy would be minimal.

Is it fair for Steve Pearce and other republicans to mislead American consumers into believing that drilling offshore and in ANWR are legitimate paths to consumer relief?

Read the full article at the link below.

Tom Udall has consistently voted in favor of working Americans. Based on his pro-union voting record, he has earned a 100% rating by the AFL-CIO:

~Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

~Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

~Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)

Steve Pearce, who has a 0% rating from the AFL-CIO, has a much different voting record:

~Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

~Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

~Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)

You can see more voting records at the link below.

Tom Udall has the voting record to back up his issues. Back in October 2002 he voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. His reasoning for voting NO on the Iraq Resolution was specifically because he wanted to finish the fight in Afghanistan and go after those responsible of the terror attack under American skies. Udall has argued for a focused fight against terrorism while also supporting the troops not just with words but by actions. For example, Udall has been working with Congress to get better health care for returning veterans and made it a priority to move to pass the new G.I. Bill that guarantees that every military veteran can afford to go to the college.

Fortunately for voters who are still unsure which candidate to cast their ballots for, Tom Udall and Steve Pearce are radically different on almost every issue. Because of this, voters can easily choose which candidate will better represent his or her interests in the senate. For example, Udall has an strong history of voting in favor of embryonic stem cell research, whereas Pearce is opposed to such measures. On The Issues offers voters a chance to compare candidates side by side on this and many other hot topics. Check out the New Mexico race at the link below.

While I tend to favor Tom Udall, I think that he is a bit too conservative for my tastes. I would really like to see a Democratic candidate who was more forceful on the need to expand healthcare to many of the poor in New Mexico.

If there is anything that would come handy in the forth coming New Mexico Senatorial elections, it would be the experience that the aspirants are armed with. Luckily, they both seem to be on the same pedestal when it comes to age but there seems to be a little difference in terms of experience garnered at the house. Pearce seems to have more experience having been on 2 committees and 4 sub- committees while Udall only served on 2 committees but 3 sub- committees although he was the co- Vice chair of one.

I agree with you that the candidates need to be stronger advocates for health coverage for Americans, but Udall does have a strong history of voting in favor of this coverage. In fact, he has been given a rating of 89% by the American Public Health Association for his pro public health voting record. Just this year, he voted to override the president's veto on expanding SCHIP to provide health benefits to millions of children in the United States. On the other hand, Steve Pearce supported the veto of the SCHIP expansion bill that would ultimately deny coverage to American children. See the link below for more information.