The first in what promises to be a series of spirited debates took place Monday between candidates for the U.S. Senate from the state of Colorado. The event was held in Parker, CO, some 15 miles southeast of downtown Denver, in a conference room on-site at The Wildlife Experience, an interactive wildlife and preservation museum.
Supporters of both camps lined the sidewalks coming in from the parking lot, and there was nary a spot to be found even to park a little VW like mine. I joined a long line of others in parking off-site on the brand new exurban streets of The Mirage or The Madison or The Mosaic, whatever that new planned community is next to the museum and unfortunately situated right under the flight path of incoming charters to DIA.
If I was put off from the start by chants such as "North, South, East, West, Mark Udall is the Best!," who can blame me? If I was disillusioned by my encounters with interactive democracy Monday, I might only chalk it up to frustration at the polarizing effects of the very partisan process of modern debate etiquette. And I should point out that I'm both a registered Democrat and a Udall supporter.
It rankles me no end that the spirit of the debate is not to attract information seekers or undecided voters to hear the two candidates outline their plans for making a better community/government/society. From the very outset, the campaigns, I believe, worked to ensure that their allotment of tickets went to supporters of their candidates. I do not know if tickets were made available to undecided voters; the Southeast Business Partnership (SEBP) cosponsored the event, and reserved a nice bank of seats for members up at the front of the house, but I do not know who sat in those seats.
I do know that, since I received my ticket from the Udall campaign, it was clear to me from the outset that I was expected to sit on Udall's side of the room. Like at a wedding where guests are seated according to family connection or friendship with either the bride or the groom, I felt as though my marriage to a candidate had begun when I entered the room. Yes, I had already been seen in City Park the day before sporting a Udall '08 button given to me by an amiable volunteer, and I had in my possession a window sign announcing our household's support for the candidate. It seemed prudent, all the same, to go hear the man in person, and to glimpse his opponent, before I committed myself further to any allegiance.
By taking a seat in the Udall section of supporters I made clear my public support for the candidate before the TV cameras covering the event. This, of course, is what the campaign wants (both of them, by the by). Guests on either side of me asked outright if I was a Udall supporter, as I wore no button, carried no banner, and kept mostly to myself at the start of the event. Several times I was asked if I would like to wave a Udall sign. I politely declined.
The thing was, I just wanted to hear what the candidates had to say. It's one thing to know that I'll vote Democratic in the upcoming election. It's another thing entirely to advocate, in any form, for a candidate. By putting a yard sign in front of my house, a sticker on my car, or my name on the volunteer lists of any campaign, anything that candidate does or says will cast an immediate reflection upon me and my family. That's a whole different ball of fun than when I simply decide to vote for the lesser of two evils, without necessarily speaking out publicly for a candidate. Remember when Joe Lieberman ran for the vice presidency? Sure, I voted for him on that ticket, but man alive am I glad I don't have a sticker on my car to commemorate that.
So what did the candidates say after all the fanfare died down? Udall opened with a strong promise that, as he has throughout his career, he will work not under the terms of Democratic or Republican solutions, but with the idea and the goal of finding Colorado solutions. He'd represent Colorado interests in the Senate, and use his experience in government to find ways to help average Coloradans. Schaffer, for his part, took advantage of his opening comments to take an underhanded swipe at Udall's background by thanking the "Boulder people" for coming down to Parker for the event. He also thanked the Green Party candidate for being in the audience, while acknowledging there was no podium for the man on stage. He went on to say we need to stop letting big government enforce "stupid" policies (in reference to a Boulder incident involving the tax man and a small business owner), and that Americans don't need more Washington politicians telling them how to live, but need tax relief, energy relief, and overall economic security.
The debate pretty much centered around oil development, renewable energy, and who's to blame for the cost of a gallon of gas. Both men toed party lines, more or less. Schaffer blamed Democrats for unnecessarily delaying energy development with calls for research and environmental testing, while Udall hit the familiar refrain that green energy development will be better for Colorado's lands and economy (jobs growth) than any further mortgaging of state lands to big oil companies.
Both men made good points, at times, and both at times misspoke. Udall kept his answers fairly short and direct, while Schaffer milked the clock and the moderator's lenient tendencies for all they were worth. For anyone keeping track at home, I suspect Schaffer showed up as the more savvy of the two, while Udall appeared slightly wooden and reluctant to wing it. That's not necessarily a problem, however. While Udall remained buttoned up, Schaffer misspoke several times on the fly. He mistakenly mentioned Iraqi Shia ties to Iran, then corrected himself to say Shi'ite, and then paused, as if unsure about that, and hastily moved on. The GOP candidate also became flummoxed when citing the amount of water needed to produce a barrel of oil shale fuel compared to that needed to produce ethanol fuel.
If Udall appeared a little wooden at times, he also did well to rebut Schaffer's use of the word "moratorium" when it came to drilling on the Roan Plateau, and also to call Schaffer out for taking repeated jabs at "you Boulder people." "Just be polite, you Boulder people," the candidate launched more than once from the stage. To be fair, I was completely annoyed with the Dems in the crowd who only listened for what they didn't want to hear (but secretly did want to hear) and then yapped among themselves in the audience over what a liar Schaffer is. Whatever. Politics is a blood sport, but I found it distasteful that audience members were more interested in the sounds of their own voices much of the time than those of the candidates.
That doesn't excuse Schaffer's labeling, which he seemed to relish, of all Udall's supporters as "Boulder people." Udall, to his credit, stopped the conversation to say that when he stands atop Long's Peak or the Continental Divide and looks out upon the state of Colorado, he does not see places where liberals live or where Republicans live or where Green Party voters live. Instead, he sees Coloradans at work, at play, and in need of real, representational help in Congress. He declared that stereotyping won't help Coloradans in a time of real need. Udall then specifically named Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager, as if to say that these divisive politics may play well for particular campaign tactics, but that Coloradans know all about Wadhams and where the real issues lie. While that might be a stretch, it was pointed out to me yesterday that Coloradans elected a Democratic senator and a Democratic governor in recent years, so maybe state voters do know what the score is.
There were many more issues, ranging from health care (to which both candidates replied inadequately) to the Army's hopes to expand Fort Carson and the politics of eminent domain laws. I left the debate with more questions than answers, but feel confident now putting up the Udall sign in my window. I suspect the Democrat has a nasty fight ahead, but I believe he'll serve Colorado well, if his own supporters can manage to shut up, listen, and represent the man in the same careful manner by which he represents himself.
