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.