Schaffer, Udall bicker over bipartisanship at DU

DENVER--Both Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall fought over the middle ground during a live televised U.S. Senate debate Monday night at the University of Denver.

"Bob has strong beliefs, but he's known as a partisan," Udall said, while listing off examples of how he worked with Republican members of the Colorado U.S. House delegation.

Schaffer cut in after Udall finished his question, saying he has "found plenty of reasons to reach across the aisle on numerous times" as a state legislator and a congressman.

"The notion that somehow I'm partisan and you're not -- you voted 94 percent of the time with the speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has one of the most partisan records in the United States House of Representatives," Schaffer said to Udall.

Udall shot back that as a congressman, Schaffer voted with President Bush 83 percent of the time. "The other 17 percent of the time he was to the right of President Bush," Udall said to cheers from his supporters in the audience.

But, as in previous debates, Udall mostly remained laid-back while Schaffer asserted himself on stage. He said he regretted a 1972 conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana, but said he wouldn't change his "no" vote on the 2003 Iraq War resolution.

Schaffer defended himself against TV attack ads calling him "Big Oil Bob" and drawing attention to his former job as vice-president for Aspect Energy.

Schaffer said Aspect Energy focused on wind power and natural gas and said oil production was only "a small portion of our portfolio."

Both candidates came out against Amendment 52, a plan by some Republican state lawmakers that would tap into the state severance tax to pay for improvements to Interstate 70. Schaffer voiced opposition after asking what Amendment 52 would do.

Both candidates also supported, in principle, bringing a new nuclear power plant to Colorado.

Asked whether they supported oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Schaffer said he'd support drilling "in the small portion of it that is environmentally safe."  Udall said, "No, unless we exhaust all other possibilities."