Colorado congressman Mark Udall has infuriated anti-war Democrats for backing a bill that gives more money to the war in Iraq but rejecting an amendment that gave 180 days for complete troop withdrawal from Iraq.
In both cases, Udall’s votes were in line with the majority of Republicans instead of his own party.
While he is taking some heat now, political observers say Udall’s more centrist stance could help down the road during his run for Colorado’s open Senate seat.
Udall, who is being slammed by left-wing blogs and is receiving complaining calls at his office, said Tuesday that he voted for additional war funding – without the withdrawal timelines that President Bush vetoed earlier – because military leaders said U.S. troops would be at a disadvantage without it.
“I’m not going to play chicken when it comes to the needs of soldiers on the ground,” said the fifth-term congressman, who voted in opposition to the war in 2002.
Udall said he rejected the withdrawal amendment proposed by U.S. Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., because a specific date was unrealistic and could possibly render areas of the world unstable.
“We rushed into this war, and we need to withdraw in a phased fashion so we don’t leave the Middle East aflame,” he said.
Only 59 Democrats voted against the amendment, which failed by a vote of 255-171.
Moveon.org, a liberal grassroots group that boasts more than 3 million members, has repeatedly criticized Democrats who voted as Udall did. The group has run ads targeting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., for their votes against the McGovern amendment.
“The country elected Democrats in November to lead them out of this war,” said Nita Chaudhary of Moveon. “The supplemental that Udall voted for isn’t going to cut it. It just continues the president’s failed strategy.”
But in a state like Colorado, where Republicans and unaffiliated voters respectively outnumber Democrats, Udall’s more moderate stance may pay off politically in the Senate race.
To be attacked by the left wing of the party is a plus for Udall, said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli.
“His biggest challenge is to demonstrate that he is a moderate, and there is no more important issue this election cycle than the war,” Ciruli said.
Udall, who is running against former Republican congressman Bob Schaffer, said he would have voted the same way, irrespective of his Senate run.
“I voted my conscience,” he said.
The three Democrats vying to fill Udall’s shoes say they would have voted differently.
Colorado Conservation Trust executive director Will Shafroth said he would have opposed the supplemental spending bill because it didn’t include timetables for withdrawal. He said he was “hesitant” to say whether he would have supported the McGovern amendment until he knew all the details.
Both state Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald of Jefferson County and businessman Jared Polis said they would have voted against the supplemental spending bill. They both also said that they would have backed the 180-day troop withdrawal bill.
Udall said that next week, he and others plan to introduce legislation in the House that would make the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations official U.S. policy.
The bipartisan panel had urged more diplomacy in Iraq and the Middle East, as well as requiring the Iraqi government to meet a series of political benchmarks in exchange for U.S. assistance.
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., is co-sponsor of the Senate version of that bill.
Staff writer Karen Crummy can be reached at 303-954-1594 or kcrummy@denverpost.com.
