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

Last night, we traveled back up to Colorado Springs once again — this time to attend the only Fifth Congressional District debate of the election season where Congressman Doug Lamborn would be present. Mind you, there have been several other opportunities to debate over the past few months; however, Doug Lamborn has always been too busy until now to show up and talk about the issues with the Democratic nominee, Hal Bidlack.

Indeed, Lamborn indicated to Bidlack earlier this month that he would only be willing to do one debate — on the eve of the election, after over half of the voters had already voted. Oh, yes, and that debate had to be sponsored by the “Republican Club of Falcon.” For the uninitiated, the Republican Club of Falcon is informally known as the “Lamborn wing” of the El Paso County Republicans.

But Hal Bidlack is a good sport, and he’s serious when he says he’ll debate Doug Lamborn any place, any time. So he jumped on the offer.

Last night, though, the Republican Club of Falcon looked a lot more like a Democratic hangout.

At Sand Creek High School — in the northeast portion of Colorado Springs (the “conservative” part of El Paso County) — a casual observer might have mistaken Hal Bidlack as being the “home team” at this Republican Club of Falcon debate. By the end of the debate, it was clear that at least 75% — a count I heard from several people — of the crowd was cheering for Hal Bidlack, not Doug Lamborn.

Congressman Lamborn looked a lot like Sarah Palin up there — almost entirely reading from prepared notes, and nervously hoping just to not screw up. His debate performances in 2006 became legendary, even to the point where a widely-circulated video of him telling an audience member to “Shut Up” was featured in Jay Fawcett’s television ads. Indeed, discussing the issues has never been a strong suit for Lamborn, and it wasn’t last night either.

The first five questions were scripted. All three candidates (Constitution Party candidate Brian Scott was also present) were given the questions beforehand by the Republican Club of Falcon. What was interesting was that apparently Marilyn Musgrave would also fit right into the GOP Club of Falcon. Of the five issues that were thought to be the most important — so important that they required pre-written questions — two of those five most important issues were abortion and gay marriage. Left off the list of the five most important issues to Republicans in Falcon? Education. Health care. Social Security. The Environment.

Even though I had a lovely Lamborn supporter over my left shoulder who insisted on muttering comments to every single thing Hal Bidlack said, he shined. And Lamborn? Eh, not so much. For instance, he may be the only person left in America who thinks we can drill ourselves out of the energy crisis: “I strongly disagree with those who say we cannot drill our way out of this problem.” Really? Really?

Lamborn’s only saving grace is that he wasn’t necessarily the strangest duck on the stage. No, Constitution Party candidate Brian Scott strove for that honor. He indicated that he would set up a Congressional office in Baghdad to work on ending the war in Iraq single-handedly. And he was clear: “I won’t vote on legislation; I won’t sponsor legislation; I won’t caucus. I’ll be camped out in Baghdad. I recognize this is an abdication of many of the core responsibilities as a congressman.” And before you get too comfortable with the fact that he’s got an anti-Iraq War position, remember that he also made it clear that he supports outlawing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

But Scott was a sideshow to the main event. Lamborn versus Bidlack. And Lamborn continued to show the pettiness that makes him one of the least-liked Republican leaders in Colorado. Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack has proven himself as a servant of his country. He has served as an ICBM launch officer; he’s worked in the State Department; he was literally in the Pentagon on 9/11 when the airplane crashed into the building. And he’s taught Constitutional law at the Air Force Academy. How did Congressman Lamborn address Lt. Col. Bidlack? Every time his name was mentioned, Lamborn — with a sneer — referred to him as “Professor” Bidlack. It amazes me that someone with such disrespect for the military service of an opponent represents such a heavily military-based district.

The zingers of the evening, though, were exclusively Bidlack’s. He received huge cheers when, in response to a question about gay marriage, he said, “I’m troubled by this notion of the right wing Republicans that we want as limited a government as possible, except for reading your e-mail and except for in your bedroom!” After Congressman Lamborn spent a great deal of time talking about his work to bring a veterans cemetary to the region, Bidlack calmly praised that work, but then said that he felt we needed to focus more on supporting veterans while they are alive, too. Another resounding round of applause.

One of the strangest moments was when an audience question about torture and Guantanamo Bay arose. In a scene eerily familiar of the Bob Schaffer playbook, Lamborn stated, “I did tour Guantanamo Bay and I did not see any evidence of torture.” He then went further and argued that terrorists “do not follow the Geneva Convention. Should we be required to grant them the protections of the same Geneva Convention?” When the crowd erupted with an impromptu simultaneous shout of “Yes,” Congressman Lamborn had that familiar deer-in-the-headlights look about him. Apparently, he doesn’t quite understand the Geneva Convention’s requirements of participants in the treaty.

In the end, though, the audience questions, submitted on index cards before the beginning of the debate were pretty good questions, dealing with issues such as Pinon Canyon, the Patriot Act, energy sources and economics. On Pinon Canyon, Congressman Lamborn insisted that the purchase could be made without any use of eminent domain — stating that all of the sellers in the controversial expansion were “willing sellers.” I’ve spent more than a little bit of time down in southeast Colorado, and his description simply does not match up with what I know to be true. He seems to be living in quite a fantasy land when it comes to Pinon Canyon.

In the end, it was another wonderful example of why Hal Bidlack would be leading this race by 20-30 points in any other congressional district. And it’s another example of why this race, like the one with Hank Eng in the 6th CD, could be out-of-nowhere surprises on Tuesday night.

Of course, don’t take my word for it; feel free to watch the debate online at:
http://www.gazette.com/video/index.php?bcpid=1155184276&bclid=1155106690&bctid=1890047711

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

Many of you know how excited I’ve been about the candidacy of Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack for the 5th C.D. Yes, I know, the 5th C.D. is a tough race, but polling is showing that Hal can win IF he can get the message out in the next four weeks about who he is and what he stands for.

That’s why the news today that Hal is now up on television in the 5th C.D. is so important. His first ad is a great biographical introduction to Hal, and has a perfect tone for the military-heavy Fifth Congressional District. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoV2fy6TSyw

Right now, the ad is running for the next 9 days. To keep this on the air for the remainder of the election season, he needs more resources. He’s already raised a record amount for a 5th C.D. Democrat, and Doug Lamborn has been nowhere to be seen. Take a second and donate today:
http://www.bidlack2008.com/contribute.php

(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/