“Tax ’em all” Udall and Another Liberal Double Standard

Liberal gotchas like this one might hold more credibility if they were accompanied by a little consistency. Citing a CBS-4 Denver report, a diarist on the Dead Guvs’ site highlights the following critique of one part of a Republican ad against Boulder liberal Mark Udall:

He didn’t vote to raise taxes, he voted against a tax cut passed by a Republican Congress and vetoed by President Clinton. While critics say Udall’s vote had the same effect as supporting higher taxes, the fact remains, Udall voted to maintain the status quo, which is not the same as voting for a tax hike.

“He didn’t vote to raise taxes, he voted against a tax cut….” When was the last time you saw a liberal attacking a conservative lawmaker with the allegation of cutting spending on Government Program X when all he or she did was vote against a large budget increase? It’s an even steeper stretch in logic than the one in the ad against Udall.

I know, it once was so common you hardly thought about it. Of course, with many Capitol Hill “conservatives” losing all sense of fiscal responsibility in recent years, there haven’t been as many such instances to highlight. But the point of the liberal double standard still stands.

I look forward to CBS-4 Denver’s debunking of liberal campaign ads that make such spurious accusations.

Of course, even the Dead Guv diarist had to concede that there were other instances where Udall actually has voted to raise taxes. There is no denying that Colorado taxpayers carry a heavier federal burden today in part because of Udall’s votes in Congress.

Sounds like a great slogan idea … Mark Udall for Colorado: he’ll tax ’em all.

The ad may have been less than careful in making a legitimate point about the Boulder liberal’s voting record. But the ad’s liberal critics should take care to check the mirror first.

Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall


  1. says

    I emailed the reporter about this segment. He did reply, so that’s a good thing. He said the RSCC was spinning and that he calls ’em as he sees ’em. This was my response:

    Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that the spin runs the other way here, though. Udall has a long history wanting it both ways. On the House floor he says secret ballot union elections are important, and then he votes to abolish them. He claims he is and was against the invasion of Iraq, yet he introduced his own Iraq AUF bill three three days before the vote. He says he favors gun rights but, with the exception 2006, when he received a D, the NRA has graded him an F throughout his career in Congress. He says he’s for energy independence and votes against every single measure to increase domestic energy production. He says he’s for healthy forests and then votes against thinning and against the roads you’ve got to have to fight fires and insects. He votes in favor of a tax increase and then says he intended to vote no. What a crock. And you give him a “mulligan”?

    If you’re on a water commission and you have to vote between keeping water levels as is and reducing the water level, and you vote for the level as is, are you voting for higher water levels? Frankly, I think it’s a distinction without a difference.

    You’d never know any of this from watching local news. Most voters will go to the polls knowing only that Mark’s a good-looking guy who favors green energy, never even knowing that green energy is already driving up their grocery bills.

    I don’t think debunking an online ad that 99 percent of voters will never see is doing much to inform the public. But that’s just me.

    I know this sounds strident, and I apologize for that, but news coverage of politics is extremely frustrating to conservatives, which I’m sure you’ve heard before.

Leave a Reply