The Rockey on Marky

The Rockey Mountain News ran a fairly interesting parallel biographies of Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer in yesterday's paper, one highlight of which was learning that Mark came within 3,000 feet of the summit of Everest in 1994 before being forced down by weather conditions.

Meanwhile, apparently Schaffer enjoys practical jokes, and in 1998--in what could only have been a grand metaphor for his political career--he served Rockey Mountain Oysters to unknowing attendees of a fundraiser in Washington D.C. He is quoted as having said "everybody had a ball."

Check out Udall's bio here.

Check out Schaffer's bio here.

Udall, Guns and Elk

I just wanted to expand a little on what I mentioned in my last post about the positive effects of Udall's appearance as a wholly Western candidate for Senate. I mentioned that he just "came off" that way which isn't particularly substantive blogging, but I think that the point is incredibly important to appreciate.

I think that the Udall family name, and its corresponding association with the West, is thoroughly entrenched in voting Coloradans political psyche. Mark in particular has consistently demonstrated his Western credentials on a number of important issues. His advocating for the preservation of the Roan Plateau is certainly an example of this. The Roan is the example par excellence of the sort of natural resource that Coloradans cherish and yet many in the GOP are advocates of spoiling. A press release from Save Roan Plateau explains that,

Citizens are protesting the leasing because drilling will have permanent impacts on the area’s important wildlife habitat, watersheds, and the region’s air quality [...] Drilling the Roan Plateau could also have serious consequences for water quality and trout streams [...] Energy development will threaten the quality of the plateau’s watersheds, potentially contaminating the Colorado River and harming the drinking water supplies of municipalities that rely on the river.

If the bipartisan outcry over McCain's comments about the Colorado River Pact are any indication, if theres one thing to take seriously about Colorado, its that we are damn serious about protecting our water. In unswaveringly advocating drilling the plateua, Schaffer associates himself with a tradition of Washington politicians alienated from the concerns of those our West.

Further, Mark has been a staunch advocate of hunting rights, and of appropriations that would help develop shooting ranges to compensate for shrinking hunting grounds. This sort of support resonates with voters. In a telling editorial in the Summit Daily News, John Smeltzer writes,

As a retired Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) senior manager and an Endowment Life member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), I understand the relationship between protecting wildlife and their habitat here in Colorado and the protection of our firearm rights under the Second Amendment. Both issues are extremely important to me and sportsmen and sportswomen across this great state. Many Colorado citizens, myself included, chose to live in this state because of our abundant wildlife populations, breathtaking habitat and our great outdoor recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing and shooting sports — three activities near and dear to my heart. [...]

Even though I am voting for John McCain, I joined more than 75 other CDOW retirees, including two former CDOW directors, in endorsing Congressman Mark Udall as the “Sportsman’s Candidate” for the U.S. Senate.

This exemplifies Colorado's independent streak, and so long as Schaffer doesn't realise that he has to account for the unique priorities of our state, his campaing will continue to squander. Needless to say, Schaffer's GOP cronnies' running ads attacking Udall's (and, incidently, sitting Republican Senator Wayne Allard's) support for an earmark to build a bridge to protect drivers on I-70 from elk crossings (a danger alien to most out-of-staters) won't gain him much ground.

Some Ambiguity in the Recent Udall/Schaffer Debate

As aired this past Sunday on Meet the Press:



I'll be honest, as I speculated in an earlier post, I didn't think this would be/was Mark's strongest showing ever. At the very least, Schaffer certainly came into the debate better prepared, with a list of legislation Mark voted on in hand. Why it is that Udall's handlers haven't prepped him on how to handle such an assault is frankly a little beyond me. Particularly given how outlandish Schaffer's claim that the recent financial shocks were in no way related to Republican decisions is.

Udall was certainly aided by Tom Brockaw's arguably slightly slanted moderation. And to Mark's credit I felt that he finally landed a decent counterpunch with:

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 financial system meltdown, (the) middle class being choked, no energy policy, a war with no end, CEOs getting welfare -- this is a direct example and the direct result of what you did and what you supported when you were in Congress.

Though substantively I feel like I have to reluctantly give this debate to Schaffer, in terms of popular perception I think the net impact will be hard to gauge. Schaffer certainly comes off as a policy wonk, but such analysis tends to go over the heads of most Americans and such theatrics as reading off the numbers of various pieces of legislation Mark voted on are virtually meaningless to even well informed viewers.

Watching Mark one can't help to get the sense that he is of pure Rockey Mountain Stock, while Schaffer comes off as the slipery, fast talking, DC city-slicker types that many in the West (probably rightly) have a strong aversion to.