Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Senate rivals Schaffer, Udall agree on one thing: bailout

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

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

Text size  

More Elections

More stories »

Senate hopefuls Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer duked it out on Meet the Press Sunday as their supporters cheered them on at parties back in Colorado.

Schaffer, a Republican who once served in Congress, ripped Udall's voting record. Udall, a Democratic congressman, talked about failed GOP policies, including deregulation.

"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," Udall said.

But Schaffer repeatedly pushed back at Udall.

"Mark, I've been out of Congress for six years. You've been there for 10. Tell us what you've done," Schaffer said. "I was there during the times when we actually delivered on what we promised."

It was Meet the Press' first Senate debate without Tim Russert, who died in June, and moderator Tom Brokaw received mixed reviews.

Teacher Barbara Moore, of Denver, who watched the debate with Udall supporters at the Uptown Tavern, thought Brokaw should have stopped Schaffer from what she saw as "constant interruptions."

But William Eigles, of Denver, who joined Schaffer supporters at the candidate's headquarters in Greenwood Village to watch the show, saw it differently.

"I was impressed that there was a genuinely free-wheeling debate independent of Tom Brokaw's mediation," he said. "I think viewers got real insight into the personalities, as well as the positions of the candidates."

But Schaffer supporters were clearly riled when Brokaw pointed out to Schaffer: "It has been your party, in all fairness, that has been in charge for the most part of the last eight years, and it has run up record deficits of now $500 billion."

"I thought that was inappropriate," said Evelyn Spicer, of Castle Pines North, who was at the watching party. "If Mark can't defend himself, then he ought to get out of the race."

Brokaw's first question concerned the proposed economic bailout.

"There's nothing to like about the notion that there is a $700 billion fix needed with respect to a collapse on Wall Street," Schaffer said.

Udall said his constituents aren't happy either.

"People are mad," Udall said. "My calls are mixed, between people who say 'No' and people who say 'Hell no.' "

Reactions

to the Meet the Press debate between Senate hopefuls Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer:

* From the Democrats

"In between fidgeting in his chair and lashing out with false attacks against his opponent, an overcaffeinated and angry Bob Schaffer defended oil company profits as 'not too bad.' "

News release from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

"Bob Schaffer is losing this election and you could see that desperation with the way he attacked Mark Udall."

Barbara Moore, 56, of Denver

* From the Republicans

"Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer aggressively confronted Boulder liberal Mark Udall on votes that could have averted the current economic crisis."

News release from Schaffer's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams

"Bob Schaffer is a man of remarkable poise and clarity. Mark Udall can't appear to get past certain stock mantras for the Democratic Party."

William Eigles, 52, Denver

Comments

  • September 29, 2008

    7:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    which do you want, a skilled parrot and 8bn department of peace who is good at saying what you want to hear? or a leader?

    It seems the attacks on Schaffer are simply that he had a job in the oil industry, (which many of us who realize we live off the stuff see that as a good thing), and the fact that he's a Republican. What kills me is how the lefties will have you believe you to think that the oil business is bad, never once realizing the tax revenue, the jobs, and what revenue state takes versus whats left for profit.

    At the same time, Udall has a track record of being a chameleon, voting against cheap domestic energy, (yet now chants about wind and solar the two least likely solutions) He has a record of voting for things that expand government and skillfully twists his message to incorporate "hot talking points" cleverly disguised as the sensible versions of the other sides position. His recent change on energy comes to mind. Fool me once...

    It's the same old battle as old as our country, those who fight for your freedom and your rights and the "smart guys" who want to take it away.

  • September 29, 2008

    8:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    Schaffer was fidgeting and rude. As soon as Udall started making a point Schaffer rudely interrupted. Not just rude and out of order, but a clear tactic to silence the oppositions critical observations.
    schaffer needed a cheat sheet... Udall did not.

    Udall for Senate '08

  • September 29, 2008

    8:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    I'll vote for a man/woman who has seen the business side of oil, before a career politician. No one has been picking on wal mart, who has seen large profits from the junk they get from China. A gambler that dumps his money on the tables don't get bailed out, I don't know why they are bailing out people who took a gamble and lost.

  • September 29, 2008

    10:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Beavis898 writes:

    If you are worried about the economy now, just wait until Unions run the country. Does France ring a bell (where politicians write books about 'Declinism')?

  • September 29, 2008

    11:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    not2serious writes:

    I'll vote for Udall, but he got bullied around in this debate. He would have to have been as rude as Schaffer was though to have made it a fair fight. It was kind of embarrassing actually as a Coloradan watching the thing knowing these guys were on national television.

  • September 29, 2008

    11:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    brad.lowe writes:

    Mark Udall has no substance to any of his arguments. He speaks in platitudes, and blames Bush for the problems that he has helped create over the last ten years in congress, which the rise of his party to power the last two years have helped excacerbate.

    Schaffer gets fired up, but at least he cites some facts, some specifics. Udall has committed to supporting energy policies that don't advance the interests of Colorado, gets substantial money from Unions and then supports their pet legislation (Employee Free Choice Act which forces union workers to submit their decsion to union organiazers without a private ballot), and is entirely too liberal for any Senate position, let alone Colorado where our electorate is famously indepently minded. This isn't Boulder, and this shouldn't be Mark Udall's seat.

  • September 29, 2008

    8:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    The author of the article makes the point that Schaffer was "overcaffeinated." I wonder where he [ the author ] got the idea Schaffer had been drinking Red Bull, or shooting Starbucks into his veins, hypodermics littering the floor. And what in God's name is a false attack, Schaffer attacking Udall exhaling helium, in a tiny, high voice?