Election 2014: Coffman and Romanoff trade familiar barbs during Channel 9 debate

DENVER | With election ballots now just days away from getting to voters, the controversial and closely watched race for Aurora’s 6th Congressional District appears to be either winding down, or hitting its stride. In a televised debate hosted by 9NEWS Monday night, there was little new ground as  incumbent Mike Coffman, a Republican, and Democrat Challenger Andrew Romanoff  traded now-familiar barbs on hot-button issues.

The debate proved both fiery and  tedious, filled mostly with electoral white noise as both candidates took time to give themselves cover on potentially controversial answers.  The debate began with Coffman not giving his personal blessing for same-sex marriage, but stating he accepted The Supreme Court’s decision Monday to turn away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. “I’m legislator, I’m not a member of the judiciary. And the courts have spoken, and I respect the decision of the courts,” he said.

When asked by the moderators whether he thought Americans opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds should be forced to participate in or facilitate the ceremonies, and whether he believed in any kind of freedom of conscience provision, Romanoff used the opportunity to chide his opponent.

“I certainly support the First Amendment, which gives the freedom of religion to institutions in America. Shouldn’t we extend full equality under the law to all Americans? It’s not enough simply to suggest ‘I’m part of the legislative branch.’ The fact is Congress has sought to outlaw marriage equality. I’m glad today the court has allowed marriage equality to advance across the nation,” Romanoff said. Romanoff said when asked again to give a simple yes or no answer to whether he supported such a provision, that he was not interested in telling a religious institution what to do, but believed in equality under the law.

Coffman elaborated when asked by the moderators whether he supported anti-abortion policies, “I’ve certainly voted for a bill that provides an exemption for the first 20 weeks, and then provides an exception for after 20 weeks for rape, incest, life of the mother. I consistently voted against Medicaid funding for abortion with the exception of rape, incest, life of the mother.”

Both candidates started losing steam around 10 minutes into the debate during the short answer question round. The debate lasted for a total of 30 minutes. Neither gave a particularly clear response when asked what single issue they thought Congress spends too much time and energy on. Romanoff used the opportunity to rip on Congress for not being able to do anything, let alone spend time on a single issue. He eventually said Congress spends too much time deciding “who gets the credit.”

Coffman meanwhile touted his work with veterans as a member of  the House Armed Services Committee. The responses had the moderators scratching their heads. 

In response to a question about the last Democrat he voted for, Coffman said, “When I was a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps overseas, I voted for Anderson for president? Ouch, that’s…I can’t remember his first name.”  When Romanoff was asked about the last time he voted for a Republican, he said he couldn’t recall.

Both candidates were asked about the last time they fired a gun. Romanoff said it was at rifle practice in high school. Coffman touted his expertise with an M-16 sharpshooter, but said the last time was probably a pistol at a a practice range about six weeks ago.

Both candidates also said they had never participated in civil disobedience, a reference to a conservative Jefferson County School Board member’s recent attempts to remove instances of civil disobedience from A.P. U.S. history courses.

Despite the refreshing intimacy that could be culled from a question that asked what two books the candidates had last read, both stuck to their campaign platforms.

“I’m reading a book right now called The Unwinding,” Romanoff said. “It traces the collapse of the institutions that have strengthened the middle class. You don’t have to read the book, you can watch Congress to find out what happens if you privatize social security, or dismantle Medicare or make higher education more expensive.”

Coffman said the last book he read was by former Secretary of State Robert Gates. “Prior to that. Ouch, let me think. I read so much everyday. In terms of books, it was a history book about western civilization. I can’t recall the exact title.”

Both agreed that Congress should not provide a blanket exemption to Colorado from federal marijuana laws. Both also said they opposed Amendment 68, which if approved would allow Arapahoe Park to add casino-style gaming to its offerings.

Romanoff, a former speaker of the state House, was asked if he could give an instance of balancing a budget when it wasn’t required by state law. Romanoff broadly answered the question, and said he argued against legislators who attempted to increase spending through the state constitution. He mainly used the question as another opportunity to attack Coffman, accusing the Congressman of providing tax breaks to millionaires on the backs of the middle class.

That response invoked anger in Coffman, who told Romanoff he was “gutless” and lacked the courage to cut specific items in the budget.

“You’re running the same campaign you ran against Senator Bennet. No exception,” Coffman said. “You’re still the same candidate. It takes courage to balance the budget in Washington D.C. I cast some tough votes to do so … I think it’s absolutely gutless for you to say you’re for a balanced budget, and then not show what path you’re going to [take] to get there. Not showing what cuts you’re going to do to get there. The best answer you have is ‘I’m going to strengthen the IRS.’ That’s the best answer?”

Both candidates were at least partially supportive of the state’s new law that allows immigrant drivers to obtain a license. Coffman said he left the issue up to the state’s purview, while Romanoff said he supported it because it will improve public safety.