Udall vs. Schaffer: Agreeing to disagree

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published March 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

Mark Udall

More Local News

More stories »

They're like one of those couples that disagree on everything.

One likes the Buffaloes; the other roots for the Rams.

One supported the war in Iraq. The other said no.

One liked the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The other? Not so much.

If you think Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, disagree on 1,000 different things, that's close.

From 1999 through 2002, when they worked across the aisle from one another in the U.S. House of Representatives, they cast opposite votes a whopping 1,078 times.

That long and detailed record makes the 2008 contest a rarity in state politics. Not since 1986, when Democrat Tim Wirth faced Republican Ken Kramer, have two one-time House colleagues gone head-to-head in a U.S. Senate race.

"Talk about a paper trail. This is a paper trail that leads into the Rockies for this Senate race," said Norman Provizer, a political science professor at Metropolitan State College in Denver. "They represent two very differing views on all kinds of issues. If you look at it from an issue perspective, they aren't Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum."

The Rocky Mountain News analyzed all 2,036 congressional votes, big and small, that Schaffer and Udall cast during their four years together in the House. It's more than enough to keep the ad-makers on both sides busy in the run-up to November.

Republicans will use some of Udall's votes on spending priorities, taxes, military issues and others to try and paint him as a "Boulder liberal," sticking him with the tie-dyed stereotype of the city at the heart of his longtime congressional district.

Democrats will try to brand Schaffer as a right-wing ideologue, pointing to his votes on environmental issues, social causes or those many times when he joined a small handful of lawmakers on the losing side of a lopsided vote.

Although hard-core liberals or conservatives can win depending on national trends, the competition and other factors, candidates have an advantage if they can appeal to the state's large numbers of unaffiliated voters and break from the "typical Democrat" or "typical Republican" stereotypes.

So this year, Udall and Schaffer will try to cast themselves as mainstream Coloradans and the other guy as the extreme partisan. The mile-high list of old votes will likely fuel arguments about who is really closer to the center.

Both have vulnerabilities

Various vote studies place the two men on opposing sides of the political spectrum, with Udall leaning left and Schaffer tilting right. But it's the fine print - a nitty-gritty look at how they voted on bills, resolutions and obscure amendments - where the profound difference between the two men becomes even more clear.

"Both of them have vulnerabilities about not being in the middle," said political consultant Floyd Ciruli. "Both of them have these long track records."

Schaffer supported a 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Udall was opposed, instead supporting a failed Democratic resolution authorizing force only if the United Nations took new action on Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction.

In the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Udall opposed passage of the anti-terrorism law, the USA Patriot Act. Schaffer voted for it, though he says now, "You add seven years and hindsight and the bill would have been drafted differently."

Schaffer regularly voted to restrict abortion rights and gay rights, and promote religious themes, school vouchers or abstinence education. Time and again, Udall was on the opposite side.

In the years they spent in Congress, Republicans controlled the agenda and often forced Democrats to cast votes on hot-button issues.

Schaffer supported a proposed Constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag, and another that would require two-thirds votes to approve new taxes. Udall was opposed both times.

Schaffer cast nonbinding votes expressing support for Ohio's state motto, "With God all things are possible," and another in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings "recognizing the need for reconciliation and healing and prayer."

Both times, Udall joined many Democrats in voting "present," taking no position but denying the resolutions the two-thirds majorities needed for passage.

Citing those votes, Udall said he believes in a strict separation of church and state. "I philosophically believe the founding fathers had it right," he said.

Avoiding the stereotype

Udall, now an Eldorado Springs resident, began his political career living in Boulder, a city that Republicans paint as a bastion for tree-hugging pacifists. Udall's challenge will be to separate himself from that caricature.

Over the past two years, he has added a seat on the House Armed Services Committee. But earlier in his career, he sided with House "doves" on some little-noticed votes Republicans might try to weave into a "peacenik" narrative.

* Udall once supported an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would have cut all defense spending by 1 percent across the board. (Democrats objected that the bill included $4.5 billion more than the president had requested.)

* Udall opposed deployment of a National Missile Defense program and voted to cut off funds for space-based missiles. "Cold War technology and Cold War strategies don't particularly work in the war on terror," Udall said this week.

* And he was one of only 41 lawmakers who defended the use of federal funds at secondary schools that refused to allow military recruiters on campus.

"I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and there's no question I'm completely committed to a strong military," Udall said, adding that he has voted to approve $7 trillion in funding for defense, homeland security or war efforts since 9/11.

"I know that Coloradans agree with me that is the right thing to do in a post- 9/11 world."

In ranching country, Udall might have to defend his vote on an obscure amendment that tried to cut off funds for predator-control programs that kill wild animals to save livestock. Udall said he opposed "reckless and seemingly inhumane procedures," like shooting predators from aircraft.

Meanwhile, as the immigration debate still rages, Udall is likely to hear about his vote to uphold former President Bill Clinton's executive order requiring government materials to be printed in languages other than English.

'Big Oil Bob'

Already, Democrats are trying to brand Schaffer as "Big Oil Bob," pointing to his 2001 vote to give tax breaks to energy companies and his work on oil and mining issues for Aspect Energy LLC after leaving Congress.

In recent weeks, Schaffer found common ground with some Democrats on one big environmental issue, when he joined Udall in endorsing Gov. Bill Ritter's proposed compromise to protect pristine areas of the Roan Plateau from energy exploration.

However, in four years in the House of Representatives, Schaffer cast plenty of votes that make environmentalists cringe.

* He supported an energy bill in 2001 that Democrats call a $33 billion giveaway to the energy industry. In an amendment vote, he supported drilling proposed for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

* He also voted against separate amendments that would have banned oil drilling in new national monuments, or sensitive areas like the Great Lakes or off the coast of Florida.

* He routinely joined just a handful of lawmakers in opposing wildlife conservation or habitat restoration projects - the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, Asian Elephant Conservation Act, and the like.

* And he voted against Republican Sen. Wayne Allard's legislation creating the Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado.

"It was a dramatic expansion of the federal estate without the cash set aside to properly manage it," Schaffer said, defending the Great Sand Dunes vote.

In other cases, Schaffer voted to cut off all U.S. contributions to the United Nations, nix funding for the International Space Station, or target specific spending projects - like funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the National Science Foundation.

Schaffer called the United Nations "one of the most corrupt and financially mismanaged international institutions that there is." Meanwhile, he said he generally opposes expanding the federal bureaucracy and always tried to save money for issues that were priorities to his eastern plains congressional district.

"I can't recall a single town meeting where farmers and ranchers or scientists in my district. . . stood up and said, 'Bob, I hope you go to Washington and stand up for Asian elephants,' " he said.

But Udall's campaign also has started highlighting popular programs contained in the larger bills that Schaffer rejected, like the veterans benefits contained in the annual legislation that funds the departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development(VA/HUD).

Schaffer fires back at Udall's votes on taxes, particularly against President Bush's tax cuts package in 2001. Udall said he has crossed the aisle to vote for the repeal of estate taxes or to end the so-called "marriage penalty."

Colorado voters are famous for their independent streak, electing Republicans one year and Democrats the next.

So, are the voting records so extensive that neither candidate will be able to spin himself as a true centrist?

Provizer, who also writes a jazz column for the Rocky, just laughed: "You know better than most that cold, hard facts don't eliminate spin."

Agreeing to disagree

The two likely candidates in this year's U.S. Senate contest, Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, served side-by-side in Congress from 1999 through 2002. Over those four years, they cast 2,036 votes together, often on symbolic or non-controversial matters. And yet they still managed to disagree more than half the time - 1,078 times, to be precise. Below are just a few of their noteworthy disagreements.

Schaffer's stance is first, Udall's second

Military issues

* IRAQ WAR: Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. (Oct. 10, 2002) YES NO

* SPENDING: An amendment that would have imposed a 1 percent, across-the-board cut on military programs. (May 18, 2000) NO YES

* RECRUITING: Amendment to education spending bill that would have prohibited funds from being used to block military recruiting at secondary schools. (June 13, 2000) YES NO

Homeland security

* ANTI-TERRORISM LAW: The anti-terrorism law, the Patriot Act, first enacted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (Oct. 12, and Oct. 24, 2001)YES NO

* ARMING PILOTS: Legislation to allow airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit as a defense against terrorism. (July 10, 2002)YES NO

International

* UNITED NATIONS: Separate amendments that would prohibit all U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations, and prohibit U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations. (July 18, 2001)YES NO

* CUBA: Amendment that would have eased the United States' economic embargo of Cuba. (July 24, 2002)NO YES

Environment

* NUKE SITE: Creation of a nuclear waste repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. (May 9, 2002)YES NO

* DRILLING: Amendment prohibiting new energy leasing within the boundaries of designated national monuments. (June 21, 2001)NO YES

* RENEWABLE ENERGY: Legislation forming a renewable energy partnership at the Environmental Protection Agency to promote development of renewable fuels. (Aug. 1, 2002)NO YES

* GAS MILEAGE: Amendment that would have increased corporate average fuel efficiency standards, requiring new cars to get better gas mileage. (Aug. 1, 2001)NO YES

Space programs

* SPACE STATION: An amendment that would have terminated funding for the International Space Station project. (June 21, 2000)YES NO

Abortion

* PROCEDURES: Legislation imposing a ban on "partial-birth" or "late-term" abortions. (July 24, 2002)YES NO

* 'UNBORN' VICTIMS: Legislation to change laws to classify "unborn" children as separate victims if pregnant women are assaulted or murdered. (April 26, 2001)YES NO

Education

* SCHOOL CHOICE: Amendment to the proposed "No Child Left Behind Act" that would have allowed students from low-performing schools, or crime victims from "unsafe schools," to choose to attend private schools using public funds. (May 23, 2001)YES NO

* NO CHILD: Passage of the "No Child Left Behind Act," a series of White House-sponsored reforms including new testing requirements and other provisions. (Dec. 13, 2001)NO YES

* ABSTINENCE EDUCATION: An amendment to create a $33 million grant program for abstinence education in the schools. (Oct. 11, 2001)YES NO

Religion

* FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES: An amendment to allow religious institutions to compete for federal grants the same as private organizations. (April 6, 2000)YES NO

* CHURCH POLITICS: A bill that would have permitted churches and other houses of worship to engage more directly in political campaigns (without tax ramifications). (Oct. 2, 2002)YES NO

Gay rights

* ADOPTION: Amendment to District of Columbia appropriations bill blocking the city from using federal funds to process same-sex adoptions. (July 29, 1999)YES NO

* BOY SCOUTS: Amendment to District of Columbia appropriations bill blocking the city from using federal funds to enforce sanctions on the Boy Scouts of America for not allowing gay scout leaders. (Sept. 25, 2001)YES NO

Taxes

* BUSH TAX CUTS: Approval of White House-backed tax cuts of the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001." (March 8, 2001)YES NO

* TAX LIMITS: A proposed constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds majority votes to approve new tax increases. (June 12, 2002)YES NO

Economic issues

* WELFARE REFORM: A resolution calling for speedy expansion of a 1996 welfare reform law. (Sept. 19, 2002)YES NO

* SOCIAL SECURITY: An amendment that tried to block the implementation of a report from a Social Security commission that recommended moving forward with private accounts. (July 25, 2001)NO YES

Agriculture

* PREDATORS: Amendments to prohibit federal funds from being used to kill wild animals (predators) for the purpose of protecting livestock. (July 11, 2000 and June 8, 1999)NO YES

Other

* FLAG BURNING: A proposed constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag. (July 17, 2001)YES NO

* MADE IN AMERICA: Amendment creating a toll-free telephone number to help consumers determine if products are American made. (March 14, 2001) NO YES

sprengelmeyerm@SHNS.com

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

March 29, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

independentenergy writes:

I wish the Democrats' little lie about "Big Oil Bob" was true: but Aspect Energy is an independent producer (not exactly Big Oil!) of lots of different energy sources, including wind projects.

In fact one of Bob key projects for Aspect was to help create a bi-partisan coalition to support more efficient wind energy tax credits. Our wind energy affiliate developed the first significant project on an Indian reservation (in California) and also worked on projects in other states including Colorado.

The wind tax credits currently are biased against indpendent developers of wind projects in favor of big power companies. Bob worked hard to try to even the playing field.

Alex Cranberg, Chairman
Aspect Energy, LLC
March 29, 2008

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Campbell writes:

The Iraq occupation, the economy, mass illegal migration and the environment are the most important issues facing Americans today. Sprengelmeyer neglected to inquire the candidates position on the NAFTA agreements whether they would agree to modify of abolish them all together. The NAFTA agreements which are unconstitutional have been the sole cause of the movement or mass illegal migration across our southern border.

Whether you wish to address them as multi-national corporations or entities that control the flow of goods, this type of human manipulation for profit by corporations is not immigration, but the control of labor by forcing migration. What is now common short term benefit for todays black art of globalism, corporations have absolutely no qualms in exploiting the masses for profit. What industry is doing successfully today is intentionally bypassing the social development cycle for that profit. The actions by multi-national corporations have created the current social and economic burden on both sides of the border. This is not free or fair trade but an ongoing effort by governments and corporations to eliminate our borders, our rights and freedoms as American citizens for profit.
March 29, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

Doug Bruce is more of a centrist than Bob Schaffer.

Bob Schaffer wants to teach Creationism instead of science in the public schools. Now there's a marketable body of knowledge for someone in the medical profession. If you just pray hard enough then we won't need funding for those vaccinations.

How's that Iraq war working out? Roosevelt beat Hitler and Tojo in less time than it has taken Bush and our conservative planners to totally screw up Iraq. Our military failed to find any evidence of WMD, but it's now a training camp for terrorists. Exit plan anyone? Ask Big Oil Bob.

Conservatives have been brilliant in their management of the federal budget ain't they? With control of the White House and Congress they were sure to get that deficit under control, right? It's like watching the Special Olympics. There's sure to be a winner. I just don't think you want them running the country.
March 29, 2008

4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

No doubt Bob Schaffer would make a great representative for Aspect Energy, LLC. It's just a little old mom-n-pop multi-national oil conglomerate. Maybe Alan Cranston would like to reveal which of those California Indian Reservations for whom they provided blankets, bacon, whiskey, and wind power. I'm real sorry I couldn't find it on a web search.

A web search does shows that the Kumeyaay Tribe earns $16,000 per turbine per year. Turbines that were built by Gamesa company of Spain and installed by San Diego Gas & Electric, no mention of Aspect or Cranston. Maybe he helped by driving by and admiring the Spanish technology. http://www.nativewind.org/html/our_ne...

The primary business of Aspect Energy, LLC is developing oil, more oil, and a little bit of coal and shale. See http://www.aspectenergy.com/ . Maybe they need to update their web site.

They're real patriotic because they develop oil in Kurdistan http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.a... . So, naturally they want our troops there to protect their investment. The real beauty of this particular prospect is that it helps to prevent unification of the Iraqi government. It makes it practically impossible to extract concessions from the Kurdish part of the country that would pacify the Sunnis. Why should they share that oil money with those ornery Sunnis when they got nice guys like Cranston and Bob Schaffer to share it with. So, you guessed it! Our soldiers get to extend their tours of duty to keep Mr. Cranston and Bob Shaffer swimming in the big ocean of bloody oil dollars.

Electing a lobbyist like Bob Schaffer to Congress is a big savings to oil barrons like Cranston because he gets even more lobbying power without having to pay his salary anymore. Instead, we taxpayers get to pay Bob Schaffer to represent his old boss. Ain't that a sweet deal? It's almost as good as when Cheney got his office in Washington to represent Halliburton, which is now headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
June 30, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

jlotade writes:

Big Oil Bob?
I think as smart Americans, we know that if oil companies are charged heavy taxes, they will not dig their pockets. They know where to get back their money: consumers. They will add their taxes to our gas price so that we pay higher price. Giving them a taxe break is a way to ask WHY they have to charge higher prices. Bob's decision was to take the burden off the consumer's shoulder. He was looking out for US. Big Consumer Bob instead of Oil Bob. Let's be smarter than the libs (who as always talk before think) trying to put their blame where there is nothing. Please advice them to drink a cool aid at this moment.
Justus

Home › News › Local News

Udall vs. Schaffer: Agreeing to disagree

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published March 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Related Links

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs