When your opponents can bury you with your own words, your political career is not long for this world. Liberal Senator Mark Udall’s campaign team thought it’d be smart to tweet out a link to an old story on how much Udall is such a mountain climber (new drinking game: drink every time Udall mentions mountain climbing or Hickenlooper mentions beer or geology… just kidding – alcohol poisoning sucks!). The problem with the story? When Udall utters this line we bet he’d now wished he didn’t:
Udall said. “I’m much more inclined to look at what people do, as opposed to what they say.” [the Peak emphasis]
Oh, the irony. Just this week Udall started a tour of Colorado, ironically called True to Colorado (from the man caught in “The Lie of the Year”?) where he hopes people pay attention to only his words and not his extremely liberal record of the past six years. From the heights of hypocrisy, Udall has repeatedly tried these past few days to make this his motto:
“At the heart of freedom is the freedom to be left alone.”
First from his speech to the Democratic Assembly, to a campaign video, and finally in a tweet, Udall has been using this line. Pretty words Udall, but like you said yourself, let’s examine your actions. You’ve voted 99% of the time with Obama. You want to pass more regulation on equal pay, when you yourself pay your female staff 84 cents to every male staff dollar. You said yourself you were proud to cast the deciding vote on a bill that stripped 337,000 Coloradans of health insurance plans they liked, while making a drastic overhaul to an industry that is 1/6th of the entire United States economy:
“I look forward to casting that last vote.”
If you believe the heart of freedom is the freedom to be left alone, why were you proud to be the deciding vote on such an intrusive bill into the most private matters of Coloradans?
You took our health plans, you took our doctors, and you took our freedom to choose. The only freedom you’ve left us is the freedom to be free of you. Come November we’ll finally free ourselves to be left alone from you.
Pete Kolbenschlag , trephination was a long-established health care procedure as well, but it's hardly an argument for drilling holes in people's heads. That argument is rather reminiscent of the adolescent whine, "Everybody is doing it!" As for it being a legal right, I think the old adage "My right to swing my fists end at your nose." is most applicable. Taking a life to exercise your "choice" is really not defensible. As for safe, you should consult patients of Kermit Gosnell, if you are able.
Regarding gay marriage, I don't speak for others. There are as many opinions as noses. I personally think there are many situations that we as a society need to provide avenues for and yet can be disagreeable. Do you think it possible that one could disagree with gay marriage yet acquiesce that there should be a provision for it? There are many who find fornication a bad idea, yet don't go around persecuting couples. Common law marriage is another example where there is a legal provision for what many would consider ill advised behavior. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I have a right to interfere. The gay marriage issue has gone far beyond just provision for a legal status. It has become a religious holy war for some gay activists. With that, I do disagree, because it starts to encroach into a person's freedom to their own beliefs and thoughts. And as far as I am concerned, anybody can and should love as much as possible, whomever they want.
Bob Stephani 'Reproductive choice' is a term for a legal right. And it would always remain a 'de facto' reality, as its a long-established health care procedure, so ensuring it's safe seems a common good. And to your other point, the Republican base and many of its pols do seem to want to tell people who they can love in certain ways, ways that are generally recognized as beneficial. Seems like meddling in the 'most private of matters' to me.
Reproductive choice is just white wash for killing, Pete. Also, no one is telling you who you can love. Love anybody you want. The legal definition of marriage is a different thing entirely. Personally, I don't really care, but don't throw such disingenuous buzz words around and call it valid.
The most private matters? Like reproductive choice and whom someone can love? Oh, wait that's the @coloGOP's 'version of freedom' ™.
You left out his anti Second Amendment votes to include banning magazines over 10 rounds and for Universal Background Check. UBC has significant public, most don't have a clue what it entails and WHY it is bad law. The 2A issue is now a hot and big one in Colorado, don't let Udall off on this one despite the bill not passing out of the Senate last March, he voted for UBC and several of the anti 2A amendments.