Lamborn’s office told FOX31 Denver that he “respects the president personally, and the office of the president,” but that he wants to clearly relate that he “does not support the policies of Barack Obama, that they have hurt our country.”

Lamborn represents solidly Republican Congressional District 5, which turns around one of the top military and evangelical cities in the nation, Colorado Springs. Lamborn learned this week that he is facing a 2012 primary challenge from businessman Robert Blaha, a turn of events that seemed to rile the congressman.

In announcing he was running for re-election, Lamborn asked El Paso County Republicans to approach his opponent’s candidacy with skepticism:

“Why would someone want to knock off the most conservative member of Congress?” he asked.

Udall, a moderate Democrat and member of Congress since 1999, has lamented the partisan gridlock and the politics of personal attacks that have ratcheted up in recent years. He teamed with Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in his calls for bipartisan State of the Union seating, their proposal coming the year after Obama’s first State of the Union address, at which South Carolina Republican Joe Wislon burst out with a red-faced accusation that the president was a liar. Wilson later apologized but the heckling registered as a low point. Even in the moment, the outburst raised a disappointed “ooh” from the chamber, clearly took congressional veteran Speaker Nancy Pelosi by surprise and reduced Vice President Joe Biden to dejected head shaking.

Last week Udall and Murkowski wrote a letter to Republican and Democratic congressional leaders renewing their call for mixed seating and setting out their reasoning.

Political differences will always generate a healthy debate, but too often our dialogue impedes the progress demanded by the American people. Hyper-partisanship has frequently kept Congress from finding common-sense solutions that could spur economic growth or help our middle class. It’s little wonder that the American people have such a low regard for Congress and a lack of confidence in their governmental institutions.

So, now more than ever, we have the obligation to show that there is a place for civility on Capitol Hill and that civility can lead to problem-solving. As we saw last year, bipartisan seating reduced the division we had witnessed for decades at the annual State of the Union address, where Members traditionally took part in choreographed standing and clapping on one side of the Chamber while the other side sat in silent protest. That is an image unbecoming of our institution, especially when we should be striving for ways to put aside our differences and stand united.

“We ask for your assistance in making this a permanent tradition,” they wrote. Udall and Murkowski plan to sit together tomorrow night for the speech.

Udall spoke with CNN recently about the State of the Union address.

[Image: Sen Udall, left, Rep Lamborn, right ]

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Traditionally, Republicans sit on one side of the room and Democrats on the other. Traditionally, one side of the room sits on its hands while the other side applauds.

In an effort to bring the country together by bringing the Congress together, Udall says it is time for that to change.

Some prominent Republicans agree.

From Politico:

Congressional seating is open at the State of the Union on a first-come basis, so anyone can sit anywhere — outside of the first few rows reserved for cabinet officials, Supreme Court justices and certain congressional leaders.

The real test will come the evening of the address, when members will choose to sit with their parties or mix it up. But at least on paper, Udall’s request for a “symbolic gesture of unity” is gaining support.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced Friday she is now “co-leader” of the initiative, supported by GOP colleagues Sen. John McCain, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

“Congressional reaction to the president’s State of the Union address has increasingly come to symbolize the sharp partisan divide in Congress,” Murkowski said in a statement. “So we think a good first step towards greater civility would be for senators and congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, to sit together in the House chamber on Jan. 25 when President Obama addresses a joint session.”

In an interview with the Colorado Statesman posted Wednesday, Norton said she would choose Murkowski as her Senate mentor. “She has an incredible depth of understanding of the importance of the energy issues… She’s been, I think, a terrific spokesperson for her state.”

Erick Erickson, conservative RedState blog founder and Norton critic, blasted Norton for the comments.

Jane Norton

That’s right — Jane Norton wants Lisa Murkowski to be her mentor.

Tea party activists nationwide should take note of this. Norton has been angling for tea party support by trying to demonize Ken Buck. Now she’s admitting she wants one of the chief antagonists of the tea party movement to be her mentor.

Lisa Murkowski has even pivoted recently to now be opposed to cap-and-tax legislation, but only because now is not the time. In other words, she’s only opposed to it during her re-election bid.

In the Statesman interview Norton makes no bones about the fact that she will be a champion for “coal and oil and gas.” She said she will work to “rebuild” those industries. She also would seem likely to struggle at least at first to do any reaching across the aisle on behalf of Coloradans. In the interview she struggled to think of even one Democratic Senator she admired.

An excerpt from the wide-ranging interview conducted by former Colorado Independent contributor and now Statesman reporter Ernest Luning and Statesman editor Jody Hope Strogoff.

This is something we’ve asked everyone, including Andrew when he was here back in February. Each incoming senator — are you aware of the mentor program?


I’ve heard a bit about it.

Each incoming senator gets to pick one senator from each party, and they kind of serve as a guide and a mentor, learning the arcane ropes of the body. Michael Bennet picked (New York Democrat) Chuck Schumer and (Arizona Republican) John McCain and tells a lot of stories on the campaign trail about how that’s affected him. Apparently his kids have fallen in love with John McCain and can’t stand it when they’re arguing on television. If the Senate had the same composition as it does today, which two would you pick?

Well, on the Republican side, I’d pick Sen. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. She has an incredible depth of understanding of the importance of the energy issues, which are of paramount importance to Colorado as well. She’s the ranking member on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, so I think she would be a fabulous mentor. She’s been, I think, a terrific spokesperson for her state, so I would choose her.

On the Democrat side, let me think. (Long pause.) Let me think about it, let me think about it.

— Just curious if there’s Democrats that you admire in the Senate —


Lieberman would be an Independent, that wouldn’t count. But he’s done some —

He caucuses with the Democrats, so he counts.


I very much appreciate his advocacy around the Israel question and he’s done some great work around mental health issues. So I believe that I’d choose him, if you’ll let me do that.

Have you thought about what committees you would like to serve on?

I have, I have. I believe Energy and Natural Resources would be a huge committee for Colorado, one that we need extensive work in to help rebuild our coal, our oil, our gas industry, to help with wind, solar and an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear and other renewables. I’ve also thought about the Select Intelligence Committee because it’s important to our aerospace companies.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Udall and Bennet, both Democrats, were part of a 53-47 rejection of Murkowski’s resolution, which environmental groups in Colorado claimed would have cost state residents $18 million at the gas pumps in 2016 by upping oil dependence to the tune of 7 million gallons a year.

Specifically, the resolution would have blocked new EPA clean car standards requiring 2012-16 cars and light trucks use less oil.

“The Gulf disaster is a painful reminder that we must move our country off of oil,” Environment Colorado field director Gavin Clark said in a release. “We’re thankful that today Sens. Udall and Benner voted against this Washington bailout to big oil and other polluters. We urge [Udall and Bennet] to now help pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill through the Senate this year.”

The resolution had the backing of Republicans and some coal-country Democrats like Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. Colorado Republicans predictably slammed the EPA and praised Murkowski’s efforts.

“We’re not talking about a knee jerk reaction to an oil spill in the Gulf,” state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said in a release. “We’re talking about the EPA taking authority they don’t have and declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, which is absurd.”

A majority of scientists have concluded carbon dioxide is one of the key greenhouse gases contributing to global climate change. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide as a form of air pollution.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

According to an analysis by Environment Colorado, SJR 26 would up Colorado’s dependence on oil by 7 million gallons a year by blocking federal requirements mandating cars and light trucks use less gas, among other things.

While Colorado Sen. Mark Udall opposes the resolution as running counter to a previous U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring EPA oversight of carbon emissions, 42 senators have said they back the Murkowski resolution, with only nine more votes needed for passage on Thursday.

Colorado businesses previously voiced opposition to the bid by Murkowski, who, according opensecrets.org, is the number three recipient of oil and gas money in Congress.

Members of the Colorado environmental and business community will rally Wednesday at noon at the Diamond Shamrock gas station at 10th and Broadway in downtown Denver.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Sen. Mark Udall (DenverJeffrey)

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., for instance, is more of a natural gas guy. He views an ongoing push by Republicans and coal-state Democrats to block EPA regulation of big, stationary polluters like coal-fired power plants with some degree of suspicion, although he agrees it’s a matter for Congress to deal with in a comprehensive climate change bill.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that regulating greenhouse gas pollution is a responsibility of the EPA,” Udall told the Colorado Independent in a prepared statement Thursday. “And I think that the ongoing efforts to get around the decision illustrate the real need for legislation that limits carbon pollution, which is contributing to climate change.

“The best solution is to pass legislation that would provide certainty to the energy industry – and I’m working as part of a bipartisan group to do that.”

The U.S. House passed climate change legislation last summer, but the bill has been stalled in the Senate. In December, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans to regulate large, stationary polluters, a policy many observers view as an Obama administration insurance policy if the climate bill and its cap and trade provisions die in the Senate.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W. Va., Thursday introduced a bill that would block the EPA from regulating big polluters for two years while Congress works on climate change legislation. This despite a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act – something the agency will do by the end of the month as it relates to the auto industry.

“The Supreme Court ruling gives the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” Rockefeller said in a press release Thursday. “If Congress wants to change or alter that authority – or suspend it long enough to pass comprehensive legislation – Congress must be able to pass a bill that addresses the real life economic impacts that EPA is not equipped to consider.”

Former Democratic Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, president of the U.N. Foundation, told the Washington Post that the House bill already gives plenty of concessions to the coal industry and that Obama should torpedo the Rockefeller bill.

“The president ought to veto it, period,” Wirth told the Post. “This is a huge affront to his authority, and it’s exactly what the coal industry wants. The coal industry has everything it wants in legislation, and now it wants more.”

Udall, a big proponent of Colorado’s burgeoning renewable industry sector, as well as its established cleaner-burning natural gas industry as a bridge fuel, said it’s far too soon to give up on the Senate climate bill just yet.

“Climate change legislation, combined with the energy policy bill we already passed in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would spur growth in the clean energy sector – including natural gas – and clean up the air for our children and grandchildren,” Udall told the Independent.

Rockefeller, meanwhile, whose state has far more coal reserves than Colorado, is banking on still-unproven clean-coal technology.

“Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology,” Rockefeller said in his statement Thursday. “This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources – giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.”

Numerous Colorado clean-energy businesses, outdoor recreation and tourism officials and health-care professionals mounted a campaign last month to take on Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who in January introduced a resolution to force Senate debate on the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Sen. Mark Udall

“For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark – and perhaps unpleasant – surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed,” Udall said, referencing the 1979 Three Mile Island power plant meltdown and the industry’s struggle to improve its public image in the ensuing three decades.

“Looking beyond environmental concerns, and as we face perhaps our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we also need an ‘all of the above’ solution to jump-start our economy. That means continuing our development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass, as well as traditional energy resources like coal, oil and cleaner fuels like natural gas,” said Udall, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The Senate bill, co-sponsored by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would clear the way for the U.S. Department of Energy to engage in research into modular and small-scale nuclear reactors, cost-efficient manufacturing for nuclear power facilities and enhanced proliferation controls.

The bill is largely viewed as an olive branch to key Republicans who insist nuclear power, a nearly carbon-free source of energy, must play a bigger role in the pending Boxer-Kerry climate change bill, which would set a cap on carbon emissions and penalize the nation’s largest polluters.

“The scale of the energy changes we must make dictates that we be open to the widest variety of energy options, particularly those with domestic potential and those with cleaner emissions,” Udall said, repeating a favorite phrase. “In other words, there is no silver bullet that can solve all of our energy challenges; we are going to need silver buckshot.”

Keith Hay, energy advocate for Denver-based Environment Colorado, said Udall’s own state would bear the environmental brunt of a revival of the nation’s nuclear power industry, which currently accounts for a about 20 percent of the nation’s electrical power, although no new nuclear plants have come online since the Three Mile Island disaster.

“We don’t think that renewable energy is a silver bullet; we just think that there are some things that shouldn’t be part of the buckshot going forward, and nuclear [power] certainly shouldn’t be part of that buck shot,” Hay said. “We certainly agree with Sen. Udall that climate change is important and a pressing need, but we clearly disagree with Sen. Udall on the path forward.”

Udall talked about bringing several new reactors online in the coming decade in order to work out the costs associated with nuclear power, which he admitted are relatively unknown given the dormancy of the industry over the past 30 years.

“Environment Colorado believes, and the numbers show, that what we need to do is efficiency first, clean energy second and then there may be other solutions,” Hay said. “But to move nuclear to the head of the line when it’s one of the most costly solutions that we have is just not the right step.”

Udall acknowledged that the National Academy of Sciences puts the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants at between 8 to 13 cents per kilowatt-hour, a big range given the average national price of electricity from all types of energy was 10.42 cents in July of 2009, according to the DOE’s Energy Information Administration.

“The first wave of nuclear power plants will go a long way towards telling us whether new plants can be built on budget and on schedule in the United States,” Udall said. “I hope the answers are ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ and that the final cost of electricity is at the lower end of the uncertainty range. I say this because – if nuclear energy is to survive as a viable option – it will need to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the long run.”

Hay said nuclear plants have a track record of coming online behind schedule and way over budget.

“The road going forward is a renewable energy road and it doesn’t make sense to start building new nuclear plants on the hope that they’ll come in on time and under budget,” Hay said. “We just don’t think that investing in nuclear power and putting the taxpayers on the hook for that bill is a responsible and sensible solution to meeting our energy needs or combating global warming. It just doesn’t do either of those things as well as the other alternatives that we have.”

One of Hay’s biggest concerns is what a nuclear power revival will mean for Colorado, one of the West’s leading uranium producers in the past but a state with a legacy of mining pollution.

“Colorado is on the front end of any nuclear renaissance, and in fact we’re on the dirty front end of any nuclear renaissance,” Hay said. “So to say nuclear is a clean energy solution ignores the impacts that people in the state are going to feel from increased uranium mining, from impacts to their water to all of the other impacts that go with the mining industry.”

Udall has in the past said new technology and better practices will alleviate a lot of the problems associated with uranium in the past, but that state regulators will need to closely monitor a resurgent Colorado uranium industry.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Democratic lawmakers championed the bill. Republicans largely opposed it. At least four Republicans voted with the Democrats, reportedly to end a possible filibuster. They were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, as well as George Voinovich of Ohio, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The president will sign the Act into law in the coming days. Opposition was based mostly on a reading of the bill that saw it limiting the rights of religious believers to speak out against homosexuality.

Earlier this month Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general now in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told his staff that the Hate Crimes Act would be a powerful weapon with which to attack discrimination against lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Focus on the Family Action, reacted with concern.

“Too often it’s religious liberty that’s at stake when homosexuality is promoted in our society. The rights of people of faith who adhere to a biblical view of sexuality should not be crushed under the Obama administration’s political promises to homosexual activists.”

The Shepard Act, however, protects freedom of speech in matters of sexual identity the same way hate crimes legislation on the books for years has protected expression in matters of race. Analysts baffled by conservative concerns that the new measure would create “thought crimes” have pointed out that U.S. law has long made distinctions for motive in all kinds of crimes. Domestic abuse is a different crime than battery, for example, and is treated differently in the courts.

Democrats frustrated after a decade of obfuscation on the part of conservative lawmakers, resorted to strategy to pass the Act, attaching it to a Defense spending bill Republicans were loath to vote against.

Yesterday, Colorado U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet lauded the passage of the measure.

“As we learned in the civil rights era, sometimes communities need assistance and resources from the federal government when they have to confront the most emotional and dangerous kinds of crimes.”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.