(Cross-Posted to DemNotes at www.DemNotes.com)

Last night, had we not had to take the kids to a babysitter, we could have walked to the event we attended. I don’t know that I have ever really been able to say that. But last night, we went less than a half-mile from home, to Merlino’s Belvedere Restaurant, to attend a forum for the Fifth Congressional District race.

You’ll probably get a few posts from me on the 5th CD race in the next few days, as I’m a co-host for a fundraiser for Hal Bidlack tomorrow night in Denver. Last night, though, was apparently the first time Hal Bidlack, the Democratic nominee, had been invited to a forum to speak with the Republican candidates for that office.

The forum had promised to be a good one. It was sponsored by the Canon City Chamber of Commerce, who had sponsored the memorable debate in 2006 between Doug Lamborn and Jay Fawcett (you may remember it from YouTube: that was the one where Lamborn stammered through most of his answers, except when he was yelling at audience members to “shut up!”). To refresh your memories, I wrote about it here:
http://demnotes.com/?p=201

Anyway, we were told Lamborn would actually be there last night, so folks were excited to see how he’d improved his debating skills in two years. Folks were interested to hear his take on the economy, on the War in Iraq, and on other critical issues of the day. Folks were intrigued to see how he’d hold up against all of his opponents, including even a Democrat.

Folks were disappointed. Lamborn was a no-show.

Three candidates were there — joined by an empty chair with a “Doug Lamborn” name tag. That seemed fitting, since Doug Lamborn has essentially been an empty chair for the past two years in Congress, anyway. Hal Bidlack was joined by Jeff Crank and by Bentley Rayburn (whose own name tag in front of his chair was misspelled “Bently”).

All three were allowed brief opening remarks. Bidlack went first and mentioned what was an incredibly impressive national security resume. He said the three issues the new Congress needs to focus on for the 5th CD were fiscal discipline, taking care of veterans, and honoring the Constitution. Crank talked about his resume of working in DC for 8 years. He said, “I’m running for my children.” He cited the national debt and said both parties were out of control. He opposes earmarks. Finally, Rayburn said we needed to focus on the threat from “radical islam”. He pointed out that it was typical for Rep. Lamborn to not be there; Rayburn said that Members of Congress need to get out and listen to the people.

Then, the forum moved into a number of questions; I’d note that it appears that the candidates were given the questions beforehand. (That fact alone makes Lamborn’s absence even more egregious — he KNEW THE QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND AND STILL REFUSED TO SHOW UP!!!) The first question was on the “Healthy Families Act,” which apparently gives employees of businesses with 15 employees or more a minimum of seven sick days annually. Both Republicans, predictably, opposed the law. Crank said that this was another “federal mandate” and that “what might be good for Intel might not be good for the cigarette shop down the street.” Rayburn agreed, stating that we should “keep the free market free and unencumbered by government.” Bidlack said he thought the 15 employee threshold was too low, but would be willing to look at something like this if the employee number were higher.

The second question was about mortgage foreclosures. Gen. Rayburn went first, and somehow turned that question into a question about oil, and said we could drill responsibly in ANWR and off the coast. He also said he supports oil shale development and efforts to turn coal into liquid fuel. He finally got to the question and said that it was wrong for the government to assist Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; that it was “encouraging bad behavior.”

Bidlack said that something like 20 families a day are losing their homes in El Paso County due to foreclosures. While he’s not fond of the bill the President signed yesterday, Bidlack said that the failure of the two mortgage giants would simply have too much of an effect on our national economy and economic structure for us to let it happen without some government intervention. He also talked about the loss of Intel’s plant from Colorado Springs to China. “Our biggest export to China today is empty shipping containers … but those containers are not empty — they contain our jobs.” He finished with a great quote about leadership: “Leadership is about being a compass, not a weathervane.”

Crank agreed with Rayburn that “it doesn’t make any sense to bail out a problem caused by the government.” He said that a bail out to the two mortgage giants was unfair to the companies that made good decisions (he apparently doesn’t understand the mortgage market too well, as the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would also decimate smaller mortgage companies regardless of the quality of their decisions, but hey!). He said the bailout would encourage bad decisions later in other industries. He also said we needed to radically change our system to a “fair tax” system.

The next question was about energy, especially nuclear and energy development, and part of the question was focused on uranium mining. Candidates that had done their homework would have known that uranium mining has emerged in Fremont County as a major issue as there are proposals to mine in some pretty pristine areas with no guarantees of safety or reclamation.

Apparently, only Hal Bidlack had done his homework.

You see, Bidlack was the only one of the three candidates who actually answered that part of the question (and, remember, these folks HAD THE QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND!). Hal said that he would oppose the uranium mining in Fremont County until the companies proposing the mining could prove that they can “fix what they break.” The crowd loved that response. Bidlack also said that an energy policy will take a mix of technologies to be effective — and that we don’t solve the energy crisis by poking more holes in ANWR and the outer continental shelf. He concluded by talking about how embarrassed he was at President Bush having to unsuccessfully beg the Saudis to “turn up the spigot” recently.

Crank talked solely about drilling, and blamed Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not allowing drilling. Rayburn pretty much echoed Crank, adding that neither surface rights or mineral rights should supercede each other. He said that drilling can be safe and responsible.

I’d note that, especially when answering the oil question, General Rayburn exhibited a lot of the same mannerisms you often see in President Bush. He had the head bob down; he had the hand extension with the shrug of the shoulders down. I even thought I heard a little Bush-like snicker once or twice. Very eerie.

The next question was on universal health care. Jeff Crank went first and said something pretty amazing. He said that the “worst systems in America to be on are those that are government-run”. Really? Like the system you were on when you worked for Congressman Hefley? Or the one you’ll get if you’re elected to Congress? It was a breath-taking statement. He concluded with another very breath-taking statement (after bashing lawyers for a couple of minutes): “We have the best system in the world if you have access to it.”

Rayburn showed an even bigger disconnect from the issue. First, he spent most of his time blasting lawyers (by the way, trial lawyers have very little to do with the costs of health care in America, according to pretty much every independent study, but they do make good bogeymen for Republicans). He said that universal health care would drive a wedge between the patients and the doctors, and with single payer, you get “what the insurance company wants, not what the patient needs.” (I think he’s confusing managed care with single payer, which presumably doesn’t have an insurance company, but what do I know?) He concluded that Canadian health care is bad because he once met a nurse with a very distinct accent who told him that it was bad. Seriously. He said that.

Hal Bidlack gave a more humane answer. He said while he didn’t think we were looking at “single payer” health care, we were looking at a national health care system. “You shouldn’t have to be wealthy to be healthy.” Hal talked about his experiences with the health care system when his wife died, and finally pointed out that people who are not wealthy have health care — but it is more costly and less efficient, because it is via the emergency roon. Hal insisted that we must do something about health care, because “we are our brother’s keeper.”

The final question was about caring for our veterans. Rayburn said he hoped the new director of the VA would be more responsible, and that the community has a responsibility, not the government, to care for veterans. He also argued for more agressive treatment of PTSD for returning vets. Bidlack began by agreeing with Rayburn that a veteran should represent the 5th CD, drawing laughs from pretty much everybody except for non-veteran Jeff Crank. He continued by stating that the government had made a sacred promise to veterans, and that the abdication of that promise has been “an obscenity.” He said we had an obligation to people in combat duty (he pointed out that he only had one day of combat duty; September 11, 2001, when he was stationed at the Pentagon). He said America was awfully good at making veterans; just not so good at taking care of them.

Crank said that the “excess of the Federal government” is taking away from the ability to care for our veterans. He said that the Administration has not done a good job taking care of veterans. Then, he said something interesting: he said we needed to get rid of “whole agencies” (yes, plural) to find the money to deal with veterans’ issues. Really, Jeff? Whole agencies? Which ones? Department of Education? Department of Housing and Urban Development? FEMA? Which ones, Jeff?

Then, the candidates moved into closing arguments. Again, Bidlack went first, and his closing argument was what clearly sealed the deal for many in the room. In fact, I think it was the only one that truly sounded like he belonged in Washington representing us. He talked about the American Revolution, and how unusual it was in the history of humanity — how it was an amazing concept; that we were all “the equal of the king”. He said that he was immensely troubled by the last seven years, and how our Constitution had been ignored and trampled upon in that time. He said this was the most important election since 1932. He cited the fact that Americans are naturally optimistic, but that eating away at our fundamental liberties is dangerous. It was a pretty nice little speech.

Jeff Crank said he felt like he was “fighting a phantom” for the last several months. He then launched into a talk about conservatism and the need for small government. He ended with a quote from Tom Tancredo (yes, he really did): “Don’t waste a moment in Congress.”

Gen. Rayburn used his time to talk first about the absence of Doug Lamborn. He said that Lamborn needed to be with the people to represent the people, and he did not think that Lamborn understood that. He talked about how commanding a military base was like being a mayor of a small town, and how he was committed to rural and mountain communities, even though that will have no meaning to Colorado Springs.

In all, it was a good introduction to the crowd assembled in Canon City. Afterward, in terms of the responses each of the candidates received, it seemed like Hal Bidlack was more well-received than one would have expected at a conservative chamber of commerce event. Neither Crank nor Rayburn seemed to inspire anybody in the room, and there was really no enthusiasm beyond the enthusiasm there for Bidlack.

Tomorrow, I’ll write about the fundraiser for Hal in Denver. If you’re interested, you can find out more about the campaign (and donate) here:
http://bidlack2008.com/