Leadership Quote by Tom Udall

Udall’s sentence reads like a man trying to pull a lever without setting off the alarm. The most telling word is “believe”: it lowers the temperature, framing a hard-edged maneuver (appeals) as a matter of conscience rather than strategy. He doesn’t claim the certification process is broken; he claims it “hasn’t worked out the way it should,” a soft, almost managerial phrasing that sidesteps naming who failed, how, and why. It’s political language as shock absorber.

The subtext is a two-front operation. To supporters, “hasn’t been substantial evidence” signals seriousness and procedural rigor: we’re not overturning anything, we’re asking for proof. To opponents, it functions as a preemptive alibi: if this looks like obstruction, it’s only because the process didn’t meet an implied standard. Notice how that standard stays conveniently undefined. “Substantial evidence” is a lawyerly threshold that sounds objective while remaining elastic enough to justify delays, doubt, and continued contestation.

Context matters: certification fights are rarely about discovering new facts; they’re about controlling legitimacy. An appeal can be less a hunt for truth than a way to keep the door open for political leverage, fundraising, or narrative dominance. Udall’s “uh” and hedging cadence also matter: this is not soaring rhetoric, it’s careful insulation. The line performs restraint while still granting permission to question the outcome, recasting a partisan dispute as a sober defense of process.