Udall, Schaffer spar over the economy, war during TV debate
Democrat relaxed, while Republican fiery in the debate
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published October 6, 2008 at 10:17 p.m.
Updated October 7, 2008 at 12:03 a.m.
Photo by Matt McClain / The Rocky
U.S. Senate candidates Bob Schaffer, bottom, and Mark Udall face off during their one-hour debate Monday at the University of Denver. The two are seeking to succeed GOP Sen. Wayne Allard.
The differences between Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates no longer run just ideology-deep.
In a 9News debate at the University of Denver on Monday, Democrat Mark Udall was laid-back and conciliatory, a 10-year congressman who emphasized that sitting down to talk and working across the aisle is the way to solve problems.
For the second straight get-together, Republican Bob Schaffer came out fiery and attacking, a former U.S. House member who believes that the current Congress has done wrong by the American taxpayer and wants to change that.
The two men hoping to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Wayne Allard repeated their stands on issues.
Schaffer believes tax cuts are needed to buoy the economy, while Udall feels it more important to use government's power to help struggling homeowners hold onto their residences. Udall opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge unless there are no alternatives; Schaffer said taking resources from a small part of the land will help the U.S. gain energy independence.
Schaffer was quick to criticize Udall and the current Democratic congressional leadership over their lack of support for the Iraq war and for failing to cut taxes. Though he did not interrupt Udall as much he did on last week's Meet the Press showdown, he did stop the debate several times to say Udall was misrepresenting either his own or Schaffer's record.
Udall again answered questions by talking about his family and insisted that his record is one of working with every member of the Colorado delegation. With little emotion, he disputed attacks that he is not a friend of the military and spoke of a specific mistake he regretted: getting arrested in 1972 for having a small amount of marijuana.
Reactions contrast
Afterward, Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams praised the Republican for being more energetic and more thorough in his answers.
"I don't think voters of Colorado want a milquetoast who seems half asleep," Wadhams said. "I think they want a fighter."
But Udall campaign spokeswoman Tara Trujillo said what people really want is a senator who will listen and work in a bipartisan way. And at least one previously undecided audience member agreed with her.
"I thought that Schaffer came across a little too pompous and a little too attack-y," said Cathy Holmes, of Lone Tree, who went away feeling that she will vote for Udall. "In spite of the fact that (Schaffer) said he was very bipartisan, I think that kind of attitude speaks to a real partisan attitude."
The most confrontational moment of the night came when Udall, in rare attack mode, said Schaffer is "known as a partisan."
Schaffer stopped the debate to respond to what he called Udall's inaccuracy by saying he worked with Democrats in the state Senate, U.S. House and Colorado Board of Education. He then said that Udall voted with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., 94 percent of the time.
Udall replied by noting that in his final term in the House in 2001-02, Schaffer voted with President George W. Bush just 83 percent of the time, then added, "The other 17 percent of the time, he was to the right of President Bush."
Two "lightning-round" formats where the candidates were asked to provide answers of "yes" or "no" provided a glimpse at both their styles and substantive differences.
Both said they support increasing nuclear power and oppose Amendment 48, which would define personhood as beginning at conception, and Amendment 51, a tax increase for developmental-disability services.
But Schaffer supports Amendments 46 (ending state affirmative-action programs) and 47 (the "right-to-work" proposal), while Udall opposes them. Udall supported federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and ending Bush's tax cuts - positions Schaffer opposes.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 6, 2008
11:21 p.m.
ifyem writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 7, 2008
12:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
I think your comment does a great disservice to knuckleheads.
October 7, 2008
1:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
bwforaccuracy writes:
I encourage readers to watch the debate themselves on 9 NEWS and make their judgments about which candidate will best represent them in Washington. Their two political philosophies came through clearly. Although the facts and quotes in the article are acurate, the adjectives used to describe the tone of the debate do not make sense. Each candidate was respectful and allowed the other candidate to represent their point of view. They each corrected the other on topics. Watch it and make your own decision. Do you want more government programs or less? Do you want higher taxes to pay for those programs or not? Each candidate represented their positions.
October 7, 2008
1:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Nothing really new was offered by the candidates, I really don't care for Udall. He was a more gifted speaker, but although his sound bites sound great on the face, the underlying principles I don't agree with. I guess I'm one of those knuckleheads. I could care less about Udall getting caught with pot back in 1972, that was a very different time in America, sometimes things are quite petty. Udall is good in debate, excellent style and delivery; now if only I agreed with him on the issues, which I don't. I do like the fact he didn't vote for the bailout, that is an area I agree with him although for different reasons.
October 7, 2008
1:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
BW,
I agree that people should make up their own minds, however, it's pretty clear that Udall is the superior candidate. I'm confused by your veiled reference to "more government". Whom do you support then? Because the GW Bush administration, a profoundly Republican administration, has created more government and more government intrusion than any previous US government since the beginning when, obviously, a lot of government has to be created when you have nothing.
I find it a little shallow when Paliniacs go on and on about less government and fewer taxes when her predecessors promised the same thing and didn't abide by it. Meanwhile, they call for all this regulation--something they should have done a long time ago, but which is totally against their platform of less government. But, then again, the Rove Republican party is nothing if not extremely capable of double-speak.
October 7, 2008
5:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Schaffer is an incredibly rude human being. That's what really came across in the debate. I wouldn't vote for this guy for dog catcher.
October 7, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
GMataisz writes:
While in Washington, Schaffer was involved with convicted lobbyist Abramoff. Chek out his Marians Island fiasco and to cap it off, his involvement in Iraq and seeking and securing oil contracts behind goverment's back.
October 7, 2008
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
I was pretty surprised at Schaffer's almost complete lack of knowledge about the ballot issues in Colorado. He also said that Bush's tax cuts were for the middle class which they are not. They are for the wealthy and have not helped our economy, which is pretty obvious as the economy slides into chaos.
October 7, 2008
6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
expatman writes:
Taking the comments of Richard (since the "D***" word is not allowed here even as a first name) Wadhams re: the debate and the fact that Allards niece is supporting Udall; will someone please check D****'s rabies vaccination? He's frothing at the mouth again.
October 7, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
UteBill writes:
Schaffer cleaned up and I didn't even watch the debate.
I just know based on principles and common sense.
Bob Schaffer 08!
October 7, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
I am tired of fighters. I would like to have lovers in office, or at least people who at least try to get along instead of fighting all time as their first reaction to everything.
October 7, 2008
8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
goldenbuff writes:
Totally agree with soccermom:
"I was pretty surprised at Schaffer's almost complete lack of knowledge about the ballot issues in Colorado. He also said that Bush's tax cuts were for the middle class which they are not."
I watched this debate as an undecided voter. Udall, by far won me over last night. He handled himself in a way I would like to be represented in the White House. Schaffer just confirmed what a richardhead he is. The man has issues and looked like he was ready to explode...
October 7, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
I watched the debate and I wouldn't vote at all before I voted for Schaeffer. I've never seen a grown man behave so immaturely and he was much more civil in this debate than he was in the first.
Every word out of his mouth is condescending and patronizing...and what make it even worse is that every word is sooooo rehearsed and/or read.
It's pretty obvious that Schaefer has no mind of his own and is just a tool of D**** Wadhams who can't get elected to an office on his own.
October 7, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
I hate those political ads by Mark Udall that superimpose Schaffer into a picture along side of George Bush, as if that association is supposed to imply something personally negative. Let’s see if we can apply this same distorted rationale to Udall? I can easily visualize Udall superimposed next to Nancy Pelosi. It would be the Liberal from Boulder with the Liberal from San Francisco that he voted in as Queen of the House. If we’re going to assume guilt by association, I think it needs to be consistently applied, unless you Liberals and the news media will admit to hypocrisy.
October 7, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Bob Schaeffer has his flaws and I disagree with him on almost every issue, but I really think he is being badly handled and advised by "Tricky Di*k" Wadhams. All Wadhams knows how to do is call names and act like a jerk, which he then mischaracterizes as "aggressive". This is an important election for an important seat and Wadhams has instead made it as dirty as possible, shoving important issues aside for insults and attacks. The voters deserve better.
October 7, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
radagan writes:
soccermon, get your facts straight. The Bush tax cuts gave ALL a tax cut. The lowest tax rate went down from 15% to 10%. The middle cuts all went down 2% and it capped the highest tax rate at 35% instead of 39%. Yes, those who make over $336,000 did get a bigger benefit, however they still paid a higher rate. Lets do the math with actual 2006 rates.
$ 35k = $ 5307 tax or 15%
$ 75k = $15307 tax or 20.5%
$200k = $52591 tax or 26.3%
$350k = $102357 tax or 29.2%
So if I make $75k and pay over $15k in taxes, to me thats a lot.
The guy making $350k has to pay over $100k in taxes. You think he's getting a huge break? How much more do you think that guy should pay? Obama says income over $250k = 39% tax.
October 7, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Nobama,
And those ads that portray Mark Udall as a boogie man don't count? As a fiscal conservative and someone who values personal liberties I was driven from the Republican Party. They have lost their soul and think that by attacking other candidate's morality they will find their own.
Not working.
October 7, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Emerald writes:
Anyone who watched Meet the Press last week, as I did, could see that Schaffer acted like an attack pitbull, totally rude to say the least. If he acts like that in Congress, what would Colorado gain?
October 7, 2008
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
soccermom,
I actually agree with your philosophy. I call myself a fiscal conservative, and I'm not a religious or aniti-abortion fanatic. I am not "supporting" Schaffer and McCain so much as I'm opposing Udall and Obama. I do not believe our personal and economic solutions to problems will come from the Federal governement. It's getting way too close to socialism, even with a Republican administration and a Democrat congress.
October 7, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
not4u2no2 writes:
Kind of off-topic, but WHY do people insist on quoting Dickwad Hams on anything? Talk about a rude person... Rude and zero credibility.
October 7, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
SteveM says:
"Because the GW Bush administration, a profoundly Republican administration, has created more government and more government intrusion than any previous US government since the beginning..."
FDR will be glad to know that he was outdone by Bush. I try to educate people on the Left (mostly in vain as prejudice and ignorance form strong opinion) about the difference between conservatism (a philosophy) and being Republican (a political party). Conservatives tend to be in favor of smaller and less intrusive government. Given the two-party system that exists today, only one of those parties has the chance to be a voice for those who want smaller government. And yes, that party has let us down in this administration.
The other party does not even present itself as an option for fiscal and political conservatives, because their platform is characteristically in favor of bigger and more expensive government, increasing welfare programs, and more government control over our lives. I'll remind you that it was Obama who argued that Europeans aren't going to stand for Americans setting their thermostats too high, eating fast food, or driving gas-guzzling cars. That is an ideology of the Left. Republicans might let down conservatives, but the Left is diametrically opposed to conservatism.
In case I just did a fly by, the point is that Bush's failures do not represent a failure of conservative ideology.
October 7, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
Nobama writes:
"It's getting way too close to socialism, even with a Republican administration and a Democrat congress."
First its "Democratic" Congress as Democrat is singular, and congress has more than one member.
The use as you use it identifies you as a Ditto head propaganda swallower who only believes rush limaugh.
second the fears of socialism is getting old. as it is socialism that paves the roads, provides police and fire departments. along with other luxuries republicans enjoy but neglect to mention they are indeed socialist endeavors.
Udall was the clear winner of last nights debate. Udall was cool, calm, informed and used truth to further unnerve schaffer. My favorite parts were the audiences outbursts of laughter when schaffers lies were too blatant to go with out reaction.
schaffer grew continually more and more nervous as he himself knew what he was saying, were lies so thin, they could be seen through.
October 7, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Nobama,
But the Republicans are going to the other extreme. They are privatizing federal agencies and putting lobbyists and 'friends' in charge of federal agencies and outsourcing jobs and services. That seems to be weakening regulations that keep things in check and ultimately costing the taxpayer more. They also don't seem any more efficient and in some cases have been disasterous. (Katrina)
How much more has the war cost us with half of it being outsourced to companies like Halliburton?
McCain still wants to tinker with Social Security by letting people invest in the stock market instead. After watching our retirement funds vanish into thin air last week I would not recommend this approach.
October 7, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
INC,
I think he was getting nervous trying to remember what he has said in the past so he wouldn't flop when he flipped. He hasn't been a strong supporter of fuel efficiency standards and other measures that would make us more energy independent so he clearly is on shaky ground there.
October 7, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
SPL writes:
Well said INC. I'm from across the pond and coming here has shown me that people really don't know what socialism is or how services they rely on are, in fact, socialist. As a teacher I'm pretty glad parents are supporting a socialist ideal by sending their kids to be taught by me :)
As for the debate, Udall showed he's a decent human being, Schaffer is just an angry, out of touch moron.
October 7, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
radagan,
From a 'Times Online' article.
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion, said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter.
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
If it's all the same to you, I'm okay with Buffett's analysis.
October 7, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
RachCox writes:
buffsblg,
At least spell "Schaffer" correctly!
October 7, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
dftoad writes:
I must admit, I watched the debate only between innings of the LA-Boston game; but I honestly thought Mr. Udall was "sleepy" and Mr. Schaffer was "energetic." When I read this story in the Rocky this morning, all I could do is laugh. Talk about a reporter being "in the tank" for the Democrats!
October 7, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Schaffer's combative, rude demeanor is no sign of strength. In fact, it reeks of desperation to come across as tough. But look at his background and you'll see he's little more than a corporate stooge, so this business about being a fighter for the people is laughable.
Udall, on the other hand, comes across as composed and sometimes even mildmannered. But he's one of the most courageous legislators we have today. He was one of the few legislators to vote against the civil liberties-decimating Patriot Act, and believe me, that was a politically risky move on his part.
But knowing what we know now about that Act - talk about giving the government unchecked power to meddle in our lives! - we should all be proud that a legislator with such foresight comes from our own state.
October 7, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
ifyem writes:
Schaeffer is just a bitter knucklehead...Only way he'd get my vote is if he were on Survivor...
October 7, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Yes rachCox, that extra "e" I put in his name makes all other points irrelevant. Thanks for contributing your proofreading skills to the debate. Nit pick much?
October 7, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
INC writes:
Nobama writes:
"It's getting way too close to socialism, even with a Republican administration and a Democrat congress."
"First its "Democratic" Congress as Democrat is singular, and congress has more than one member.
The use as you use it identifies you as a Ditto head propaganda swallower who only believes rush limaugh."
And I say to you, sir, Mr INC, YOU are incorrect. The parties are Republican and Democrat. If I refer to the party in power, it is proper to say Democrat congress, as the majority party in control. That is different from calling it a democratic congress, with regard to the political process. And, what a leap in logic, or lack thereof, you made to an entirely unrelated characterization of me. And, by the way, it's "Limbaugh", not "limaugh" (sic). Now who looks like a fool?
October 7, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
RachCox writes:
Seriously… are all reporters liberals?! How can any of them think that Udall won the debate last night? He is just so boring and really doesn’t ever say anything about the specifics. He is just too broad and skips over questions he doesn’t want to answer. Especially regarding the Employee Free Choice Act and unions.
October 7, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
BBFanatic writes:
Hot dang RachCox! That’s the one issue I am all fired up about this cycle and NO ONE is paying attention to it, which is absurd. If Mark Udall is elected to the 111th Congress in November, the EFCA bill will most likely pass and harm workers like my own brother. Their right to a private ballot vote will be taken away, if I am not mistaken. Is this really the type of Senator we want???
October 7, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
RachCox,
Udall was very specific about several points and didn't have to ask the moderator to keep repeating the questions the way that Schaffer did. He clearly won the debate. Having met him several times I find Mark to be a good listener and polite which is a lot more than I can say for Schaffer. Udall didn't vote with Bush a majority of times which clearly puts him in agreement with the majority of Americans who, judging from the President's approval ratings, clearly don't support Bush either. Schaffer will continue Bush's policies if given the chance, and I for one, can't afford 4 more years of that!