Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

LITTWIN: A 'debate' uglier than Broncos game

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated September 29, 2008 at 4:33 a.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

In the spirit of John McCain, I am suspending my presidential campaign reportage.

I'm here in the birthplace of Elvis - also the first city electrified by the Tennessee Valley Authority (after which, according to Joe Biden, FDR immediately went on TV to congratulate the citizenry) - and I'm just back from an interview with a man who says he is 5-percent-convinced that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. I don't know. Maybe it's the new new math.

But none of that explains my decision to suspend, which occurred as I was watching Meet the Press. I was still in full-tilt-presidential-politics mode when - to the nation's surprise (I had actually been tipped by ace Rocky political reporter M.E. Sprengelmeyer) - Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall appeared on the screen with Tom Brokaw and began to debate.

Although the presidential race has overwhelmed the Senate race, I found myself immediately engrossed. Or maybe I was just stunned. In any case, I wrote this note to myself:

"Time for Schaffer-pit bull joke. 'What's the difference between Bob Schaffer and a pit bull: Wait - neither of them wears lipstick.' "

If you missed the debate, it was, shall we say, uglier than the Broncos game. Brokaw, hardly channeling his inner Tim Russert, seemed unbriefed and uninterested and completely unable to keep the debate going in anything like a straight line.

The debate was sandwiched between conversations with chief advisers for McCain and Obama and an interview with Bill Clinton, so you could see that Brokaw had bigger things on his mind. But still.

Here's how it would go: Brokaw would ask Schaffer a question. Schaffer would answer. Then Brokaw would ask Udall a question. And Schaffer would answer. (Actually, that's not entirely true. Udall would try to answer and Schaffer would repeatedly interrupt, leaving Udall to say, "Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish." Udall said it, by my count, 13 times, which is probably a record in a 17-minute nationally televised debate.)

This was Schaffer in full view. He was, depending on your worldview, either feisty or combative or abrupt or ill-mannered or . . . hey, let me finish. Let me finish.

If political races come down to the candidate you'd rather have a beer with, Schaffer would win only if it were the race for the guy who's more likely to throw that beer in your face.

Maybe that's why he's trailing in the polls. I doubt this debate helped him, although Udall might have helped himself if he'd once said something like, I don't know, maybe "Bob, shut the hell up."

There were, however, a few memorable moments. Udall said he thought embattled Charlie Rangel should step down as House Ways and Means Committee chairman, although I doubt if he meant it. It was sort of an offhand suggestion, and I'm guessing Udall was on the phone later with Rangel, saying, "Charlie, let me finish."

Schaffer, meanwhile, was ready to blame the current financial crisis on, yes, Udall, saying this happened "when you were in charge."

I'm not sure when Udall was in charge. But I have an idea who wants to be: Schaffer, who reliably runs for some political office, is so desperate to have a political job that he's now on the State Board of Education - a job you wouldn't wish on anyone. The only worse job I can think of - note to Andrew Romanoff - is secretary of state.

Normally, I'm not a guy to share my column, but you can't really get the full impact of this debate without some substantial excerpts.

So, here we go from the Meet the Press official transcript. It's not $700 billion worth, but enjoy:

Udall: Bob, let, let me, let me finish. Let me finish.

Schaffer: Finish by telling us what you've done.

That was a little taste. Now, another:

Udall: You interrupted me. This is 10 years of the Bush administration . . .

Schaffer: You've been there for 10 years.

Udall: . . . of the Reagan revolution coming to its logical conclusion, which is the implosion of our . . .

Schaffer: Listen, those of us who've been back home in the private sector working hard for the last six years . . .

Udall: Bob, let me, let me, let me finish. Let me finish.

Schaffer: . . . are sick and tired of these kinds of votes that make all of the rest of us pay.

Udall: Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.

Schaffer: It is a, it is a national tragedy, and there is nothing to like about it.

Udall: Let me finish. Let, let me finish.

OK, I admit it's a little sick, but I'm actually starting to enjoy this. It's not Sarah Palin and Katie Couric (did you watch the SNL skit?), but it's pretty good. Please, sir, may I have another:

Udall: Bob, I'm letting you get your points in, let me get my points in.

Schaffer: Well, be accurate, though.

Udall: You need to be accurate. You cast votes against an energy policy set of proposals that would have us much closer to being energy independent today.

Schaffer: I cast votes in favor of an energy policy.

Udall: Let me finish. For you to sit here and suggest that somehow you're immune from any of the criticism or any of the blame for the straits we find ourselves in is laughable. The policies of the Bush . . .

Schaffer: Mark, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't crash six years ago.

Udall: Bob, let me finish. The . . .

Schaffer: They crashed this year, where you were in charge.

Udall: Let me finish. The policies you support have led us to the day that we are experiencing today.

Schaffer: Absolutely not true.

Udall: The financial system meltdown . . .

Schaffer: You . . .

Udall: . . . middle class being choked, no energy policy, a war with no end . . .

Schaffer: You know, Mark . . .

Udall: . . . CEOs getting welfare, this is a direct . . .

Schaffer: . . . I proposed, I proposed we debate . . .

Udall: . . . example and the direct result of what you did and what you supported when you were in Congress.

Schaffer: . . . I proposed back home that we debate all of these topics . . .

Udall: We have been debating these topics all over the state of Colorado.

Schaffer: . . . in an open format, you rejected, you rejected the opportunity to debate these issues.

Udall: We're having a debate today. We . . .

Schaffer: Yeah.

Udall: This is our ninth debate, Bob. We're going to . . .

Schaffer: And it's not going particularly well for you because you can't rely on facts . . .

Udall: . . . we're going to have eight more debates.

Eight more debates? Suspension's over. I'm going back to the presidential race before someone gets hurt.

Comments

  • September 29, 2008

    7:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Rossputin writes:

    Schaffer might have interrupted slightly too often, but it's hard to restrain yourself when the other guy keeps lying about his own record and yours.

    Schaffer was well-prepared with facts. Udall was prepared with air and lies.

    Mr. Littwin, even if you thought Schaffer stepped on Udall, don't you think you should be talking about the actual issues? Udall didn't understand anything, didn't admit when he made mistakes, blamed Schaffer for things Schaffer had nothing to do with.

    In terms of substance, Schaffer wiped the floor with Udall. It almost seemed like a heavyweight against a lightweight. So, maybe you didn't love Schaffer's style but are you electing a Senator who is the ultimate in politeness or understands what this country needs and how to get there?

    In a way, Littwin's article is just like Udall's: it completely avoids what's important. Even Littwin agrees that the debate probably helped Schaffer. So, Mike, what's the reason? It's because the SUBSTANCE of the debate was compellingly in Schaffer's favor, on everything from economics to Iraq to Schaffer not letting Udall blame him for things that happened when Udall was in Congress but Schaffer wasn't!

    So, while you might want to tell Schaffer to "let him finish", I want to tell you to "talk about substance rather than just style". Schaffer showed Udall as man with without a clue. That's what really mattered yesterday.

  • September 29, 2008

    9:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brunowolfe writes:

    Someone once told me "whatever comes out of your mouth says nothing about the other person, but alot about you"....Schaffer may even have some substance, but whatever he did have was completely overshadowed by his lack of respect, constant interuptions, over talking, and bullying. Bob Schaffer showed himself to be the typical self-righteous candidate who once loosing, will try to gain ground by attempting to bully those he's against.....

  • September 29, 2008

    4:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    joggle writes:

    I agree with you Brunowolfe. Rossputin, of course it's hard to restrain yourself when your opponent is saying something you disagree with or you view as a lie or distortion. But when you're in a debate you just have to take it until it's your turn to respond.

    The limit of Schaffer's debating history seems to have mostly taken place in bars. Just what we need, another loudmouth that won't listen to what others have to say.

    I certainly was cringing and wishing that Tim Russert was still alive to moderate that debate. I think Brokaw's idea of moderating is to just sit there and just interrupt every once in a while to introduce another question. There's no way Russert would have allowed one person to completely talk over the other debater like that.

  • September 29, 2008

    5:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bwforaccuracy writes:

    The worrisome thing for me is Udall's lack of command for any facts and his inability to speak to what he has done in his ten years in the House. Where is his leadership? 10 years is a long time to not have a record of any major accomplishments to speak about. Couldn't his staff been able to develop at least a few talking points about what Udall has done. Why can't Udall articulate why he has voted the way he has voted and how it fits the needs of the voters in Colorado?

    Unfortunately, when Udall speaks mis-truths about Schaffer and trying to link him to Bush, the other candidate needs to interrupt the incorrect sound-bite or it gets edited and re-broadcast later on different news shows in an attempt to be fair and balanced.