Home > Political Notebook > Archives > 2008 > May > 11 > Entry
An exercise in subtlety
As The Daily Sentinel and others noted in their Saturday editions, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Bob Schaffer challenged his Democratic opponent, Mark Udall, to a series of seven debates between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Schaffer’s request by letter, while typical politicking, was also remarkable given its subtlety. (I’ve pasted the letter at the bottom of this posting so you can see it for yourself.) Granted the thrust of the letter — “debate me” — is fairly straightforward, there is more to this than that message:
—> First off, by modeling the debate after those between Republican Abraham Lincoln (one of the most often cited and fondly recalled members of the party) and Democrat Stephen Douglas, Schaffer’s camp is making some historical allusions. Specifically, the campaign is drawing a direct line between Schaffer and Lincoln — and possibly drawing a similar link between Udall and Douglas.
—> Second, you will note in the letter’s “to” section, it is addressed to a Boulder location. This is noteworthy because it subtly links Udall to the liberal area of Colorado — despite the fact that the Udall campaign has a Denver headquarters.
—> Finally, the letter’s mild tone strikes a sharp contrast with the Schaffer camp’s public comments in recent weeks. Nowhere in the letter does the phrase “Boulder liberal” appear. Nor does the letter take a swipe at The Denver Post or that newspaper’s very able political reporter covering the campaign.
Udall declined to participate in Schaffer’s plan and sent this statement to Political Notebook:
“I’m looking forward to a strong and substantive series of debates in this campaign. I firmly believe that the debates we do should allow us to answer questions from the people of Colorado about the issues that are most important to them, but Bob’s proposed events do not. I hope in the coming weeks that we can work together to develop a schedule of debates for the summer and fall that reaches every corner of the state and gives Coloradans an important role in the process. I’m pleased to see Bob taking an interest in discussing the issues with Coloradans; he could start by answering simple policy questions from reporters and putting information about his positions on his Web site.”
Yeah, that’s not so subtle. Then again, Udall’s team has responded in kind to the Schaffer camp’s constant use of “Boulder liberal” label, so the tone of the reply is, perhaps, not all that surprising.
As promised, here’s the letter:
*Schaffer photo from The Daily Sentinel archives. Udall photo shot by Political Notebook.
Comments
By J
May 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
It’s going a bit overboard to make the assumption that Bob Schaffer had a secondary goal of insulting Mark Udall by comparing him to Douglas. First of all, with exception of people who are purposefully trying to make Schaffer look bad, no one would actually read the letter that way. Secondly, he was inevitably simply clarifying which type of debate he was proposing, as there happens to be at least 2 that could be used. In this case, he was indicating a ‘values’ approach as opposed to a ‘policy’ approach.
Furthermore, Schaffer’s ‘under handed stab’ at his opponent by addressing it to a Boulder location, if there was any offense implied at all, is not any better or worse than Udall’s open insult in his response. It would hardly be good campaign manners to attack Udall in this particular letter, seeing as how it was being sent to the man himself. It is not unusual for two opponents to ‘go negative’. Your implication that Schaffer is the worse for it, where Udall has only been responding to it is inaccurate. However, if we’re to follow the example of this years democratic race, we should expect them to come to full blows any minute now.
By Political Notebook
May 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
We never meant to imply there was something underhanded or insidious in the letter. The letter’s finer points are actually quite remarkable.
The tone of the letter and the Udall campaign’s response are what they are. You be the judge of who is “the worse for it.”