Yesterday, Senator Mark Udall published a piece on the online leftist rag, Huffington Post, deriding three aspects of the Patriot Act he says he doesn't support. If he actually opposes them then why, pray tell, did he vote for those exact same three provisions only three short months ago?
In the article, Udall identifies three provisions that he says he can't support:
- Roving wiretaps
- Business Records access, also known as the "215" orders
- Individual terrorists as agents as of foreign powers, also known as "Lone Wolf" wiretapping
The problem with Udall trying to claim opposition to these aspects? He voted for them in February. Not only did he vote for their extension, but the bill, 
H.R. 514, was only about these three aspects of the Patriot Act.
From the US Senate website on H.R. 514:
A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.
If Udall actually had a problem with just these three specific provisions, but supported large parts of the Patriot Act like he claims in his Huffington Post article, then the vote on February 15, 2011 was the perfect opportunity to voice that opposition.
He didn’t vote against them then and he has never explained his reason for the about-face.
The hypocrisy of Udall is blinding. Check this part of his article:
These three provisions are troubling because they are ripe for abuses that involve expansive government surveillance of innocent people, even though common sense fixes and protections exist if only we were allowed to debate them.
Mr. Udall, you were allowed to debate those provisions. In February. And you voted for them.
And the growing list of Udall foreign policy flip-flops continues.
didn’t he author the Iraq Resolution in ’03 or ’04 in the House, then went around in ’08 blaming Shaffer and Bush for Iraq?
Udall keeps drawing attention to himself because of all of these conflicting messages–and not in a good way. I realize he’s trying to run to the middle so he can get himself set up for his upcoming reelection campaign, but he would have done a lot better for himself if he’d kept his mouth shut and remained the likable wall-flower. Now he’s giving people a reason to not like him.
Udall is trying to act like a tea bagger. This doesn’t make any sense.