Bogus 501 (c) ad's Acrid Fumes Smack of Desperation

An independent group by the name of Freedom's Watch has begun running this ad on stations across Colorado:



The truth of the matter is that Freedom Watch's ad is filled with nothing but hot air--an apt metaphor for a party content to float up, up and away from facts. Or perhaps indicative of panic in a campaign whose own hill committee couldn't cook up a poll that puts Schaffer in the lead.

While I would like to see Democrats putting out a response ad of their own, Politico reports that the Udall campaign's lawyer is pushing TV stations to pull the ad. Attorney Douglas Friednash writes,

Because Freedom [sic] Watch does not let the facts get in the way, this does not provide you with the ability to ignore them and the obvious legal issues created by this advertisement [...] The offensive representations and slanderous image directly tie Mark Udall to the use and promotion of marijuana.

CBS4 has done a fairly good job of fact checking the ad, but apparently this wasn't enough for some in neocon blogosphere. "A Watcher", of the anti-Udall attack blog SchaffervUdall, refuses to believe CBS4 conclusion that the claim that "Udall voted against funding for our troops" was false, she argues that,

If memory serves, he wanted billions taken out of the defense department budget and he didn't care whether it meant fewer bullets, fewer uparmored vehicles, or less care for wounded soldiers.

She also mentions that, "I think they are wrong, but don't have the time to do the research to prove it." How convenient. Well fortunately I do.

The Facts

Mark Udall was one of over 40 cosponsors of the original bill, HR 2459, in 2001. The bill apeared again in 2003 as HR 1673, this bill mark initially cosponsored until he withdrew his cosponsorship on 3/17/04. This wasn't a move to apeal to the electorate as it was before any election pressures or attack ads, it was just him using his best judgement as a Represenative to decide that it was too expensive to create a new cabinate level position. The bill then reapeared in 2007 in its current form as HR 808, which Mark has not endoresed.

The ad cites "2003 HR 3289 CQ # 562, HR 3289 CQ 501" as the as proof of his votes against funding. First, this is a petty attempt to make it apear as though there are multiple instances of voting against appropriations when in fact the two citations are for one bill at two different procedural levels.

Second, he opposed this bill not because he opposed funding the troops but because, as CBS4 notes, "he opposed giving $20 billion in direct grants for reconstruction to Iraq. Instead, Udall says he wanted the money to be transferred in the form of loans. He wrote an editorial to that effect back in 2003." In fact, that same year he also voted for HR 2559, The Military Construction Appropriations act, that would appropriate funds to the DOD for various military construction projects, base reallignment etc. Surely this speaks to the fact that Udall had no intention of shirking the troops in favor of a Department of Peace.

Third, the ad ignores the most important point. That is, that as a member of the House armed services committee he has consistently voted to appropriate funds for our forces in Iraq and Afganistan. He bucked his party and voted to fund the troops without a timeline with HR 2206 on 5/07, he voted again to appropriate funds to the troops with HR 4156 on 11/07, and then again with HR 2642 on 6/08. To accuse the congressman of not supporting our armed forces is totally ludacris.

"A Writer" seems to be argueing that even if this was the case, that there was some trade off in voting for the Department of Peace initiative in that funds would be comming out of the DOD. According to the bill,

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act at least 1 percent of the total amounts appropriated annually for the Department of Defense.

So it is true that a small percent of total DOD funds would be going towards the Department of Peace, but the trade-of logic hust doesnt hold water. Appropriations for opperations in Iraq and Afganistan are specifically earmarked in in bills like HR 2206, and thus general funds for the Department of Peace would not be taking away from our honorable troops.

It was a good effort by the folks over at SchaffervUdall, we can only hope that maybe one day when they "have the time" to do their research, they might come to their senses.