Latching On to Bridget Johnson's Live-Blog of the Final (Phew!) Schaffer-Udall Debate

We here at Schaffer v Udall are too burned out for the final debate between Colorado's two major U.S. Senate candidates. The Rocky Mountain News' Bridget Johnson live-blogged the CBS4 showdown. Here are a few key excerpts we enjoyed:

The closed captioning on TV says that Udall just said "filly blusstering," Schaffer fires back -- still with that forced smile -- about how he would represent values in U.S. Senate.

And:

Udall asks what Schaffer even did in Congress. Bob is on a tear, rattling off stuff from the CDC to ranchland to missile defense.

And:

Lynn asks about Department of Peace moonbattery proposal. Udall said it was "duplicative" and "made some sense at the time." He said he made his point and then it was time to move on. Is Congress just for grandstanding, then? No wonder nothing gets done. [link added]

And:

Udall is asked on card check, without the panel describing that it's a labor bill for the folks at home. Schaffer happily provides the explanation and goes after Udall's jugular on it. The closed captioning called it "car check." This debate is so unfair to the deaf. [link added]

And finally:

Schaffer is on a cool tear against socialism. No redistributing of wealth and take from those of ability to give to those in need, he says.

Thanks, Bridget. We look forward to meeting you in person some day.

Question About Clothes vs. Charity Suggest It's Time for Schaffer-Udall Debates to End

With two weeks to go before Election Day and early votes already being cast, the final U.S. Senate debate in Colorado between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall draws headlines for this discussion:

Residents wanted to know how much Colorado’s two senatorial candidates spend on their suits versus their gifts to charity.

Both candidates Democratic Rep. Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer faced the uncommon question as their first in a line of 16 in Greeley at the Union Colony Civic Center Monday night during their last in a series of debates.

“I’m into recycling my suits,” Udall joked.

He said he gives $5,000 to $6,000 a year to charity, while Schaffer said he gives 10 percent of his income. Both said they haven’t bought a suit in years.

The candidates also had 60 seconds to say something nice about their opponents.

What this all might indicate about the state of the race I am not going to venture to guess. But it probably suggests that now is a good time to stop the debates. What a relief ... home stretch, here we come!

Can We "Agree to Disagree" about Last Night's Schaffer-Udall Debate in Pueblo?

Twenty-one days left before the election, and we won't have to hear more about the debates in which candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall "agree to disagree". Nothing too remarkable happened last night in Pueblo that I can surmise from the news reports.

But there was this quirky observation from the debate that allows more boisterous audience interaction:

Udall's fans cheered his support of a line-item veto for the president, and Schaffer's responded to his support for strict-constructionist judges.

In the spirit of "bipartisanship," here's a cheer for both of them. Because I agree with both those issues.

Quite simply, though, there are plenty of things on which I disagree with Boulder liberal Mark Udall. He can be right from time to time, but not nearly enough to give common-sense taxpaying Colorado consumers a rational reason to support him.

Slow Learner Mark Udall Has It Totally Backwards on Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Mark Udall never seems to learn. He still struggles to explain why he is co-sponsoring a bill that takes away workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections, opening them up to intimidation. From Tuesday's Chamber of Commerce debate, via Channel 7 News in Denver:

Udall defended his decision to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections, saying it still provides many worker protections that he supports.

He said the Bush administration and the National Labor Relations Board have been "missing in action" in ensuring that employees are treated fairly. He said the act ensures that employees won't be intimidated by union leaders or employers. [emphasis added]

That is so entirely backwards as to be absurd. Taking away the secret ballot protects workers from intimidation? Mr. Udall, do you wish to reconsider that statement?

At least it appears that Mark Udall has moved past his "serious reservations" about sponsoring the Employee Free Choice Act, "serious reservations" that were overcome by tens of thousands of dollars in union campaign contributions.

Did Mark Udall Duck a Debate to Attend a Boulder Fundraiser with Nancy Pelosi?

An on-the-scene informant tells SvU that Mark Udall skipped an appearance at a candidates lunch debate today in Arvada. The event was hosted by the Arvada Chamber of Commerce, and among the sponsors was retiring state senator Sue Windels, D-Arvada.

Bob Schaffer was there, so what more important activity did Mark Udall have to do? His public calendar shows no conflicts.

Perhaps Mark Udall was at the Jared Polis fundraiser in Boulder keynoted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with whom Udall votes 94 percent of the time. After all, Udall might want to thank Pelosi in person for staging a second recorded vote to cover for the fact he missed the crucial vote on energy he promised to make when she thre him under the bus.

Where was Mark Udall today? Inquiring minds want to know. (And bloggers can ask these sorts of questions.) Perhaps some intrepid reader who attended the Polis-Pelosi event in Boulder today can help definitively answer the question.

Uh-oh ... Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Chamber of Commerce Debate Memorable for Civility

So reports the Rocky Mountain News - perhaps largely attributable to the fact that Bob Schaffer changed his tack:

And consultant Sean Duffy, who once worked for former GOP Gov. Bill Owens, said the debate lacked "electricity."

But Duffy praised Schaffer's even-keel performance, saying, "People watching this debate will see this is the Bob Schaffer who won a lot of respect when he was in office."

In previous debates, Duffy believes, Schaffer was "trying to score points too fast."

In a debate known mostly for its civility, the most memorable moment may have been Mark Udall's back-to-back flub at the end:

In his closing remarks, Udall thanked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for hosting the debate. Uh, that's the group that's spending $2 million on attack ads against him.

He realized his error and then thanked the "Colorado Chamber." It's the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Whoops.

It's not terribly surprising that there has been low turnout at the last two debates.

Meet the Press Debate: Mark Udall's Votes on the Wrong Side of Financial Crisis

Here's a great clip from Sunday's Meet the Press Debate in which Bob Schaffer calls Mark Udall to the carpet for his votes that helped to make the current financial crisis possible:

Notice how Mark Udall doesn't answer the charge, but only tries to shift blame with platitudes and campaign talking points. Hardly the kind of leadership Colorado wants or needs in the U.S. Senate.

Mark Udall Gripes about Stretching Military Thin As Though He Thinks It's a Problem

The Darke Blog notes about this morning's Meet The Press debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall:

In response to a question from Tom Brokaw (Meet the Press) about Iraq, Udall goes on a rant about how the war has weakened the miliatry [sic]. Udall blosters his opinion by pointing out his position on the Armed Services Committee. And then he shames the military by declaring (for all the world to know) that we have no capacity to defend the homeland.

Yes, this is the same Mark Udall who has voted many times against military funding, including providing body armor for combat troops.

And we're supposed to believe Mark Udall really thinks it would be a problem for the United States military to be stretched thin? Just more empty talk from Udall.

Mark Udall Says Tax Cheat Rangel Should Step Down, But Keeps Rangel PAC Money

From this morning's Meet the Press debate with Bob Schaffer, Mark Udall gave a tepid call for admitted tax cheat and fellow Democrat Charlie Rangel to step down from his committee chairmanship:

"I think it would be helpful if Charles Rangel steps down," Udall said of the New York congressman, who is being investigated for failure to pay taxes on a condominium he owns in the Dominican Republic even as he presides over the House's main tax policy committee.

Made almost as an aside, the comment may create problems for Udall after he said last week that he wasn't going to return a $12,000 contribution from Rangel's PAC to his campaign. [emphasis added]

You don't say? Mark Udall doesn't seem terribly interested in returning Rangel's money, or the money raised from retired sweatshop owner Susie Tompkins-Buell.

And inquiring minds want to know if Mark Udall took money from terrorist coddler Jodie Evans at this weekend's Hollywood fundraiser. Someone needs to ask the tough questions.

Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Meet The Press Debate Set to Air This Sunday Morning

This Sunday, September 28, brings the key nationally-televised debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall on Meet the Press, moderated by media dinosaur Tom Brokaw. It is scheduled to air at 9 AM on Denver's Channel 9, the local NBC affiliate. Check local listings, and check back to Schaffer v Udall afterward for coverage and analysis.

Mark Udall Evades "Serious Reservations", Bob Schaffer Stands Up for Secret Ballots

In a U.S. Senate race with plenty of stark differences between the two major candidates, one of the clearest differences came up in the recent YouTube debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall. First, the question from Justin Wilson and Udall's evasive answer:

Mark Udall completely avoids answering the question, probably because co-sponsoring a piece of legislation that robs workers of the right to a secret ballot can prove to be quite embarrassing.

By contrast, here's Bob Schaffer's answer (H/T Labor Pains blog):

Bob Schaffer speaks for common sense: "You should have the right to privacy when you are casting votes on something so important."

Bob Schaffer Wins Round 1 of YouTube Debate, Exposes Udall's Gun Rights Record

In the first Colorado U.S. Senate election to have a YouTube debate, the first question is on the 2nd Amendment. You can follow the link to view the candidate's answers.

In this race, only Bob Schaffer has consistently recognized an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Mark Udall talks the talk, but has been on both sides of the issue.

Oh, and here is the documentation for Bob Schaffer's claims about Mark Udall's consistent F ratings from the National Rifle Association (though he did earn a D in 2006). In 2007 Mark Udall slipped back to receive an F-minus from Gun Owners of America. By contrast, Colorado Democrats Ken Salazar and John Salazar finished with a B and A-minus, respectively

Chalk up Question 1 to Bob Schaffer. Next question: higher education funding. In a very closely watched, neck-and-neck race, the YouTube debate could potentially have a significant impact.

Nailing Down Mark Udall's Shifting, Cuban-Centered "Comprehensive" Energy Policy

As reported in today's Grand Junction Free Press, from last Saturday's Club 20 debate:

[Bob] Schaffer pounced on [Mark] Udall for supporting drilling in Cuban waters of the Gulf of Mexico, something Udall said he backed in order to give Americans the opportunity before someone else got to it.

In the interest of general consistency, doesn't Mark Udall also want to give Americans the first opportunity at ANWR, oil shale, and most - or even all - offshore drilling in American waters? No. Meanwhile, drilling in Cuban waters appears to remain Udall's idea of "responsible drilling."

Mark Udall's energy policy is "comprehensive" - if by "comprehensive" you mean "any energy source that won't soon be profitable nor help quickly lead to energy independence for the American people, plus a little bit from Cuba, plus whatever else absolutely has to be done to win a few extra votes." That's the best definition I can come up with after following the issue for months. Any alternative suggestions?

Contrast that with Bob Schaffer's reasonable comprehensive energy policy.

Wanted: Your YouTube Video Question for Candidates Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer

Both Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer have agreed to take questions in a YouTube style debate. From the citizentube blog:

So, got a question for Schaffer and Udall? Watch our call-out video and submit your question by August 31st!

Here also is a link where you can watch the video and post your response. They're taking the top five questions. Doesn't look like too much competition thus far, so check it out. For my money, I like this question:

You have four days to match or top this.

Mark Udall Pledges to Work Toward Energy Solutions Before Congressional Recess

At yesterday's pre-recorded debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, the Boulder liberal Democrat candidate made a promise:

Schaffer, meanwhile, accused congressional Democrats of being more concerned with voting to recess at the end of the week than passing an energy plan. Agreeing to Schaffer's challenge, Udall said he would not vote for a recess until an energy bill comes up.

At The Colorado Index, Civil Sense highlights the importance of Mark Udall's promise and why it will be difficult for him to keep:

It is unlikely that Nancy Pelosi and the Delay, Don’t Drill, Do Nothing Democrats would allow debate on an energy bill before summer recess as this would force vulnerable Democrat House members to vote against their leadership. Time will tell whether or not Mark Udall will have to follow through or renege on his promise to vote against summer recess.

In addition to sitting on their collective hands on expanding domestic energy supply, Mark Udall and the Democratic Congress have failed to pass a single appropriations bill to fund the federal government, to fill numerous judicial vacancies, and to investigate massive corruption uncovered among trial lawyers.

Will Mark Udall keep his promise? Or will he come back to Colorado with an "aw shucks, I tried" that befits his dedication to radical environments over domestic energy solutions?

The Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall debate airs locally in Colorado on 10 PM Sunday on Fox 31.

DSCC Tries the Ridiculous "Big Lie" to Spin Mark Udall out of His Debate Disaster

Here's a new dispatch from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Try to read it out loud without laughing - I still can't do it:

In the first debate between Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall and far-right Republican Bob Schaffer, Udall came away the clear winner. Udall presented a clear plan for moving the country forward after years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, national security, and our energy policy.

Sorry, I should have warned you not to read that with food or drink in your mouth. Hope it didn't cause any unfortunate damage to your computer.

Anyone who actually watched last Monday's debate recognizes this as some of the most outrageous and absurd propaganda of the season. "Udall came away the clear winner"? Yes, if by winning the debate you mean "not tripping and falling on your face in front of hundreds of people." And Mark Udall "presented a clear plan"? What clear plan was that ... "working together"?

Hey, these guys at the DSCC ... it's their job to put a little spin on the campaigns. But sometimes they have to make themselves look like royal fools to do it - this is one of those instances for the DSCC. Hope they're getting paid well to publish this unbelievable drivel.

Even Mark Udall's Weak Debate Rhetoric on "Working Together" is Pure Fantasy

Rocky Mountain Right has outdone itself this time with a stinging 30-second video:

How bad was Mark Udall's Monday debate performance? Even his empty platitudes were based in fantasy. Udall voted along party lines 96 percent of the time. Bob Schaffer voted along party lines 84 percent of the time.

Who is more independent and non-partisan? Despite Mark Udall's weak rhetoric, the facts don't lie.

Mark Udall Blindsided on Iraq Resolution - No Dept. of Peace to the Rescue

Courtesy of Rocky Mountain Right, the blindside on Mark Udall from Monday's debate:

The only question is what hopes Mark Udall had for his Department of Peace to govern our Iraq policy and to protect us from other terrorist dangers.

Mark Udall Healthcare Quips

A couple examples from the end of yesterday's debate help to highlight why Mark Udall isn't exactly in the same league as Barack Obama when it comes to drawing and inspiring a crowd.

Here are two Mark Udall quotes in response to a question about health care reform (access to the full 9News video - see Part 3 - is here):

"We have 800,000 people here in Colorado who don't have healthcare. Many of them feel like they're an illness away from being bankrupt. They don't know how they're going to cover their premiums for the next month. This isn't acceptable."

Those uninsurance premiums are really high, eh?

"Because this isn't only about our economy, it's about our national security. To win the war on terror, we have to have every American as healthy as possible. By working together we can do that."

Congress is going to work together to make us all healthy enough to win the war on terrorism? Um, okay....

And they say that health care is a stronger suit for Democrats.

Missing the Point of Bob Schaffer's Powerful Zing on Mark Udall's Iraq Record

The most striking blow in today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall came when 9News moderator Adam Schrager read a question submitted by a viewer: Why are we in Iraq, and how will we know when we we've won the war?

Bob Schaffer answered the first part of the question by reading from a Congressional resolution that included many of the charges against Saddam Hussein's regime - including his chemical weapons program, his state sponsorship of terrorism, and his treatment of the Kurds. A campaign press release said:

Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd.

Mark Udall's resolution called for more diplomatic action, but clearly left the military option on the table.

The point of this elucidating moment? That even in opposing the war, Udall clearly acknowledged the reasons that 296 other Congressmen (including 81 Democrats) reasonably relied upon to make their judgment for authorizing military force. And as Schaffer himself explained in the debate, those who voted to support the war didn't want to telegraph our nation's intentions to the regime that had perpetrated the things highlighted in the resolution.

The disagreement was not over the facts in evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq. But Schaffer's question to the audience demonstrated that those supporting Mark Udall fail to recognize the pertinent facts before the nation in Congress and 2002 that were weighed as we debated whether or not to depose the Saddam Hussein tyranny. And those facts remain, even if some conveniently seem to have forgotten them.

Over at the Dead Governors blog, one paid Lefty propagandist thought he caught Bob Schaffer in a gotcha moment - claiming that the Republican candidate "just makes stuff up." The propagandist may have a legitimate disagreement about a foreign policy decision, but he utterly missed the point. Still the Big Blue Lie Machine tries to churn out distractions to hide their candidate's pathetic showing on the debate stage today.

Well, for the sake of an honest debate, I suggest the paid Lefty propagandist give a more careful viewing of the video. But the outcome might just be too painful to watch.

For open-minded independent voters, the debate is a worthwhile watch. They can decide for themselves.