President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 28, 2008 05:46 PM UTC

Udall, Schaffer On "Meet The Press"

  • 105 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Helpfully supplied by a reader:

Colorado Senate contenders Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer were on NBC’s Meet The Press this morning. We’ll post video once it’s available; in the meantime, Tell us how they did.

Tweet
Share

Comments

105 thoughts on “Udall, Schaffer On “Meet The Press””

      1. Because he read the talking points Dick Wad printed out for him to read? A monkey could do what Bob Schaffer did today.

        If Bob really thinks our financial crisis started in 2005 and is only the cause of fannie mae and freddice mac, he has about as much knowledge of the economy as he does renewable energy; zero.  

      3. He was smart enough to bring notes on the votes. Didn’t make any mistakes. Nailed Udall who never recovered.

        What’s funny about this thread is how many wimps are complaining about Schaffer’s aggressiveness, which showed his intellectual superiority and integrity compared with Sierra Club Udall’s attempt to walk in the park.

        The same people complaining about Schaffer’s style love Barney Frank.

        Go figure. 🙂

    2. I don’t like Schaffer on social issues, but I’ve always felt he is so talented that if he gets in the Senate, he’ll quickly become a leader.

      Udall has been and always will be a back bencher.

    3. Bob Schaffer crushed Mark Udall on Udall’s votes against reforming Fannie and Freddie, which are primarily responsible for the collapse the housing market, soaring foreclosures and freezing the markets for mortgage-backed securities.

      Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd and all other Dems demanded that Fannie and Freddie buy and back  subprime mortgages. The encouraged other lenders to be equally irresponsible, and it gave poor credit risks incentives to buy houses they never could afford.

      Udall never answered Brokaw’s question about why taxpayers  should bail out Colorado speculators who are in foreclosure.

      And Udall still doesn’t understand why there is a financial crisis and will be for a long time.

    5. I tried to watch.  I gave up when Schaffer decided the right way to behave is to talk over others, not let them finish talking, and otherwise disrupt any kind of rational discussion.  I don’t care if he’s right; if that’s his approach to discussing issues, we don’t need him in the Senate.

      2. Bob has endured one of the slimiest campaigns against him that I have ever seen.  He is tired of the lies and misrepresentations, so he cut of Udall when he started making them again.

        It wasn’t Schaffer’s best debate, but he can beat Udall any time. Besides, put your self in his shoes– if you were a pro-life Catholic and they were telling people that you “looked the other way on forced abortions” you’d get plenty mad. And the whole Kurdish oil deal smear– does anyone care that that deal helped the Kurds, who really needed the business after ten years of economic sanctions they didn’t deserve? And also, that it certainly motivated those politicians in Baghdad to get their act together and sign an oil law? I think Bob has maintained his cool quite well, considering the crap that Udall and all that out of state money has been slinging at him. We Colorado voters need to send a message to Udall and defeat him. Let Colorado decide who our Seators are, not George Soros’ dirty money.  

  2. But Udall kept letting him push him around without fighting back. He was so mellow it was actually Brokaw who pushed back harder on Schaffer’s nonsense.

    Udall did a little better on the energy stuff but he shouldn’t have let Schaffer try to hang the whole housing crisis (by way of Fannie/Freddie) on him like that.

      1. and it airs at 8 AM.

        Agreed Udall was too low key.  Schaffer was rude and Udall should not have let him treat him that way.  He should have told him to STFU (in diplomatese, of course)

      1. Why not in the suburbs?  Isn’t that where most of the folks that like Schaffer live?

        I think his behavior won’t play well among people that are voting for Udall, come hell or high water.  If the shoe were on the other foot, you’d be saying “I don’t blame him for being mad! Look at what’s going on in Washington! Stick it to the man!  Fight the power!”

        Ok, maybe not the last two.  I just like to say those things with my friends.

        1. in American politics. At least not at the Senate/Presidential level.

          I mean, if you don’t believe the poll results that show Obama winning the debate among undecided voters:

          http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2…

          http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…

          http://marcambinder.theatlanti…

          http://tpmelectioncentral.talk…

          (links helpfully compiled by John Cole)

          then I don’t think I can convince you of this.

          But yelling or meanness is always a loser, whether Republicans do it (as McCain and Schaffer did) or Democrats do it (as Gore did in the 2000 debates, and even as Obama did in one of the primary debates). Backfires every single time among independents.

          If you’re trying to shore up the base, it’s a winner. If you’re going after swing voters, it’s a big loser.

              1. since taking over for the DNC.

                Maybe it’s just the candidates that have to at least feign civility, and their surrogates can get away with outlandish garbage.

                1. candidates-gracious

                  surrogates-knife fighters

                  as long as the surrates don’t embaress the candidate with part of the base(then its your job as a surrogate to fall on your sword)

                  One thing you can’t do is overshadow the candidate-this why wadhams, though a good knife fighter, is a bad campaign manager.

  3. Schaffer gave him a long list of votes on them, and Udall didn’t explain why he voted against the proposals. He just tried to change the subject.

    Schaffer looks like a dick, and Udall looks stoned.

    3. That was a disaster for Udall..not responding on Fannie Mae. This is the first candidate encounter on national TV after the so-called bailout agreement.  I am shocked but Udall let Schaffer win on points.

      ….Brokow should have stopped Schaffer from interrupting..

      1. We heard pundits say the same thing about the Presidential Debate. Nobody wins on points, because nobody is keeping score. Debates are about who looks and sounds better to the average voter. You could “win on points” and lose the debate for all practical purposes.

            1. No, he didn’t. Snide dishonest remarks by Schaffer are not “winning” points. Schaffer was an embarrasement for Colorado. He not only lost the debate, but he made other Republicans look bad.  

              1. He hammered Udall on his votes against regulation.

                Udall (which really surprised me) looked totally inept – Schaffer bullied him because Udall let him.

                He didn’t make anyone look bad except Udall – you already hate him – he doesn’t care what you think.

                What did you think he was dishonest about?

                1. the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failures is the sole cause of our economic crisis? Because Schaffer argued that it is, and that it’s Udall’s fault.

                  Like I said, Schaffer looked pathetic reading those pre-scripted attack lines.  

                  1. and I think you probably know that. But the first half of that segment, Bob owned Udall’s ass. I found myself wishing Udall would explain why he voted the way he did.

                    By the second half, I started to feel like Bob didn’t want Udall to answer and Bob definitely didn’t want to respond to any questions and that made me suspicious of virtually everything that came out of Schaffer’s mouth.

                    All in all, I think it was a wash.  

              2. ColoradoPols got it right. Friday night some said McCain won on points. But look at RealClearPolitics: for the first time in weeks, there’s been a shift in the electoral college projections, and it’s going for Obama.

                The trend is all Obama, and the debate is only helping him.

        2. Schaffer quoted, with references, legislation in which Udall failed to vote for stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie.  Back in the day, you get points for that in Colorado high school debate circles.

          1. That’s what McDonalds used to do before Nader and the Hindus got on their case.  Pretty clever, eh?  Total recycling, too.

            Once upon a time McDonalds, like all restaurants, sliced their own spuds and then soaked them in water before that tallow dip. I remember watching them do that.

            Now you can’t buy tallow if you wanted to.  

  4. If my 9 year old behave like Schaffer behaved, he would be grounded until he graduated from college. There is absolutely no reason to be so rude and obnoxious. It is embarrassing for Colorado to have such a display of arrogance and rudeness by Schaffer. I expect the two Senate candidates to disagree, but to do so respectfully.

  5. Schaffer didn’t really let Udall talk, but Udall came off as wimpy because he wasn’t able to stand up for himself.

    Schaffer would hammer Udall with specifics and Udall could only come back belatedly with slogans.

    Wow.  Total disaster for Udall.  Very unexpected.

  6. 1) Exploit the anger which the average citizen feels by directing it toward the two year old Democratic Congress…

    2) Claiming that Congress declined to regulate…throwing Barney Frank at the bailout..

    3) Blaming the problem on high risk loans to minority and..dare we say it…illegals..

    4) Target “Acorn” as a “community organizaing commie pinko” organization which the dems are giving special bailout money to…and that “Acorn” caused the problem in the first place…

    5) McCain rode into Washington on his white horse and saved the day for the American taxpayers…

    The right wing radio is already beating the war drums…once more into the fray…

    If Udall’s performance is any guage…the dems are in deep dodo…all over again.

      2. From Bill Clinton signing the revocation of Glass-Stegall to Bush removing every bit of oversight he could to the Congress who shoveled favors to the financial industry.

        But the lions share of the blame goes to the administration which set the tone and worked to pass some and defeat othe rlaws over the last 7 years. Which reduced regulation as much as possible. And under whom the worst of this has occured.

  7. Schaffer was just reading those facts off a piece of paper, that doesn’t indicate intelligence to me.  Udall should have respinded better, but Schaffer didn’t appear smart, just like a jerk.

  8. Schaffer came off as an obnoxious bastard.  While it worked for him at the beginning (and Udall should’ve pushed back a bit more), within two minutes it was like listening to fingernails scratching a blackboard while being tortured on a medieval rack.

    Since the Republican party announced its intention to run on “personality and character” this year rather than issues, I guess they’ve decided that rude and angry is the winning ticket with that 10% of swing voters.

    I say stick with that strategy!

    Schaffer and McCain = mean, arrogant jerks

    Udall and Obama = reasonable, thoughtful problem-solvers

    1. But as an R I felt like Schaffer was anxious to get past talking points and actually show that this current financial crisis with mortgages was in fact spurred in large part due to policies emanating from the Democrats.  He was specific, and countered Udall thoroughly, deservedly, and harshly.

      Getting spanked like that isn’t necessarily pleasant to sit through.  We Republicans should know, eh?

      1. On style Udall didn’t look very good, but either did Schaffer.

        I know Bullies tend to like the GOP style, but the independants are really turned off by it.

        I don’t know how important this is: how many undecideds watch MTP.

        Truth is the papers better get out their endorsements early (early voting and all) and they better break schaffer’s way or Udall’s going to win on Obama’s GOTV coattails.

        1. …but what do you know about independents?  As much as I do.

          Udall looked totally unprepared.  You’re supposed to bully someone who is unprepared in a debate.

          1. the dial testing of the presidential race indicates their tendancy.

            Too often we’ve seen house and senate races turn because one of the candidates was seen as rude or disrespectful.

            Low info independants make decisions based on their perceptions of candidates not on policy. Mean is not good, but neither is stoned.  

          2. Again, Udall didn’t need a cheat sheet going into a debate like Schaffer did.

            Schaffer was over the top, perhaps too much coffee this morning, but he was just rambling and almost incoherent even with talking points in front of him.  

            1. Then he should have been able to respond better.

              Sorry, but he got his ass kicked today, even if it was in his inability to get Schaffer to let him get a point across.

              2. …is, IMHO, to Udall’s credit. I’m not Udall’s number 1 fan. And I agree that Udall was weak in the specifics of what he said.

                But to say that when Schaffer turned the discussion into a 5th grade schoolyard fight, that Udall did not lower himself to that level and therefore lost the fight – that’s to his credit. That he acted like a grown-up trying to actually have a discussion.

        2. watch MTP.  They probably didn’t today either.  What might be important is that the two clips I’ve seen on separate, local newscasts, Schaffer’s been interrupting.  Both he and Udall are talking and Brokaw is giving Schaffer a look like he’s being an ass.  I didn’t watch MTP today, but from that I got Schaffer was being… an ass.  Turns out I was right.

    2. Schaffer came off strong at first and Udall came off ineffectual.

      But, the constant interrupting and barrage of accusations soon had me tuned out to Schaffer. And, I started to wonder what he had to hide when he wouldn’t let Udall speak.

      All in all, Udall seems too passive and Schaffer seems like a jerk who is terrified of someone else being allowed to answer a question. Wonder why that is?

  9. I don’t know how anyone could even consider that a person that is so disrespectful and so impulsive as Bob Shaffer just demonstrated would be a good part of our government.  Shaffer was just a total turnoff.  Most of the folks that come on the Sunday talk shows let the other person speak and counter their positions when it’s their turn.  Either Shaffer thought he couldn’t remember Udall’s points long enough to be able to counter him when it was his turn or he just couldn’t control himself.  There’s no way I’d want such a person representing me regardless of what party they are in.

    1. no one has pointed out you just registered today and only did so to bash Schaffer…

      I guess we only do that to people we disagree with.

      Anyway, welcome to Pols…

          1. There’s just been a rash of brand new posters. It so happens that you have been a “lurker” but I guarantee you the vast majority of newbies are just that…brand new.

            And welcome back, by the way.  

        1. I put in some paragraphs in my 2nd post.  I guess the comments about the importance of style in modern life I just read in PC Mag are really true!

          Sorry, this was just too short to justify more than one paragraph.  OOOps!

      4. I think I was registered some time ago, but my old login didn’t seem to work, so I re-registered it.  

        I usually don’t jump in here as I’m pretty busy, but the performance by Shaffer was just too horrible to ignore.  I watch the Sunday talk shows regularly and I can’t remember ever seeing anything like that before.

        I do read the Pols regularly, but mostly I don’t post.  Thanks for your [warm?] welcome.

        1. It was just a weird weekend, with lots of people signing up just to post one comment. Looks like you got caught up in it by chance.

          Takes a little while to get accepted by the community, but eventually people are pretty friendly.

  10. Schaffer started off in policy wonk mode and was very good at that. And Udall was awfully general in his response which I think was weak in comparison.

    But then Schaffer started butting in and came across as a thug. Not forceful disagreement but a thuggish attempt to beat down every sentence uttered by Udall.

    Udall was somewhat restrained at first but then started giving it back – and to be honest I’m not sure what the best response is in that situation.

    But as the video above ended the entire conversation had turned into a fight between two 5th grade kids on the playground. It was embarassing to watch.

    Schaffer dragged it down to this level. But Udall allowed himself to be dragged down to that level. And instead of a discussion of the issues and areas of disagreement, we got a schoolyard fight.

    1. Brokaw just stammered through the first half, without reining in either of them.

      The difference between a bad moderator and a great moderator is knowing when to intervene and setting down some basic rules of engagement and sticking to them. Brokaw did neither.  

        1. At first, I wanted Udall to just talk over Bob but then it got to be so obnoxious, Udall looked like the guy taking the high road and Bob just looked like an ass.

          If Bob’s goal was to come off as an arrogant, rude blowhard…well, mission accomplished.  

  11. …of why Bob Schaffer cannot win a statewide election.  Behind in the polls, Bob thinks he can shout his way to victory.  The sad fact is that Republicans have failed to make good on all those promises of a smaller, more efficient, and more effective government for the past 30 years.  As a real conservative, moderate Republicans like Schaffer make me sick.  Their constant lying and reluctance to take responsibility for their own moral failures (yes campaign lies and greed are moral failures) have destroyed their credibility beyond repair.  If the GOP wants to become relevant again, they’ll have to develop a new team of principled conservative candidates. Worn out hacks like Schaffer need to fade away.

  13. Could the parties have nominated two more lackluster candidates that have already proven they are part of the DC establishment?

    These guys act like children.

      1. I cheered for him at the State Convention. He had us on our feet and then we all voted for Salazar.  Way to go dems.

        A another point of personal observation.  I was up on the CU campus when Kennedy debated Nixon, the first time. I was

        undecided, and the TV room in the UMC was too crowded to see the one black and white TV.  So,  I listened to the debate on the radio. At the end, I knew that Nixon had won on “points.” Once a high school debater, always a high school debater.  However, I also had decided that I wanted Kennedy to be President, an emotional reaction, but an honest one.

        1. I was just reading about that. Most interesting line, which never occurred to me until it was pointed out:

          US News:

          There has been a perception that radio listeners thought Nixon won on substance while TV viewers preferred Kennedy because of his more handsome appearance. But superficial influences also sway radio audiences, notes Michael Schudson, a communications professor at the University of California-San Diego. “Nixon was famous for his winningly deep, resonant voice, and Kennedy was famous for an accent that to most Americans was pretty strange.” And only one poll was taken, of uncertain reliability.

          I did some public speaking in high school (“extemporaneous speaking,” which means of course bullshitting your way through a topic on short notice) but I never did competitive debating. Still I can’t imagine any debating club would let one person talk right over another. I think even by the high school debating standard, Schaffer lost this one.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

98 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!