For better or worse now that it has, it is the campaigns responsibility to provide some degree of information about their positions if for nothing else to attract a broader cross-section of potential candidates in the primary or from third parties. The party insider-annoited candidates shouldn't have a stranglehold on the process, especially in the case of Schaffer where there has been quite a bit of grumbling about his viability in this race from the rank-and-file.

Frankly, I think it's kind of arrogant for any candidate to be dismissive of voters' concerns, like in the case of Pinyon Canon residents, by clamming up publicly about an important issue while sharing his/her innermost thoughts with well-heeled donors.

The “little people can wait” attitude is pretty offensive. Also, it's a bit troubling that the perception is that the candidate's views appear to be shaped by high dollar donors versus the candidate's own personal convictions and previous public service record.

As a very conservative congressman, I would assume that Schaffer's position on private property and eminent domain would likely be similar to his CD4 successor Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's support of the Pinyon Canyon residents. But I think it's very fair game for folks to know if Schaffer will do a triple-toe, double-lutz a la Doug Lamborn by flip-flopping on his previous record to support the Army's position.

But a few important points need to be made here:

First, it's far too early in the campaign for such issue positions to be critically necessary.  As both campaigns reach out for “early  money”, the people whom they visit with know what the candidates' positions are, or they are told personally.

Schaffer will flesh out his positions fully and in due course.

I would also note that Udall can simply copy and paste issue statements from his existing House web page (although his House web page is unavailable this morning), so it's not exactly an accomplishment for him to have some issues up on his campaign page.

And as far as issues go, Udall's list is hardly impressive. Most of the issues he mentions are very “soft”, and the details of his positions are generally without substance.

I also note that of the 157 bills Udall has sponsored since 1999, 136 haven't even made it out of committee, substantially worse than average.

All in all, your whining about Schaffer demonstrates your ties to Democrats more than any sort of actual news.  Udall's stuff is nothing new, and nothing he's actually done since the Senate stuff started, and Udall's record is that he doesn't really get anything done on issues anyway, so in a way there's little point in knowing what he thinks.

Schaffer's campaign told me this morning the former congressman misspoke when he spoke to The Chieftain:

http://www.gjsentine…

Schaffer’s campaign told me this morning the former congressman misspoke when he spoke to The Chieftain:

http://www.gjsentine…

But a few important points need to be made here:

First, it’s far too early in the campaign for such issue positions to be critically necessary.  As both campaigns reach out for “early  money”, the people whom they visit with know what the candidates’ positions are, or they are told personally.

Schaffer will flesh out his positions fully and in due course.

I would also note that Udall can simply copy and paste issue statements from his existing House web page (although his House web page is unavailable this morning), so it’s not exactly an accomplishment for him to have some issues up on his campaign page.

And as far as issues go, Udall’s list is hardly impressive. Most of the issues he mentions are very “soft”, and the details of his positions are generally without substance.

I also note that of the 157 bills Udall has sponsored since 1999, 136 haven’t even made it out of committee, substantially worse than average.

All in all, your whining about Schaffer demonstrates your ties to Democrats more than any sort of actual news.  Udall’s stuff is nothing new, and nothing he’s actually done since the Senate stuff started, and Udall’s record is that he doesn’t really get anything done on issues anyway, so in a way there’s little point in knowing what he thinks.

For better or worse now that it has, it is the campaigns responsibility to provide some degree of information about their positions if for nothing else to attract a broader cross-section of potential candidates in the primary or from third parties. The party insider-annoited candidates shouldn’t have a stranglehold on the process, especially in the case of Schaffer where there has been quite a bit of grumbling about his viability in this race from the rank-and-file.

Frankly, I think it’s kind of arrogant for any candidate to be dismissive of voters’ concerns, like in the case of Pinyon Canon residents, by clamming up publicly about an important issue while sharing his/her innermost thoughts with well-heeled donors.

The “little people can wait” attitude is pretty offensive. Also, it’s a bit troubling that the perception is that the candidate’s views appear to be shaped by high dollar donors versus the candidate’s own personal convictions and previous public service record.

As a very conservative congressman, I would assume that Schaffer’s position on private property and eminent domain would likely be similar to his CD4 successor Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s support of the Pinyon Canyon residents. But I think it’s very fair game for folks to know if Schaffer will do a triple-toe, double-lutz a la Doug Lamborn by flip-flopping on his previous record to support the Army’s position.