U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 31, 2008 08:10 PM UTC

The Republican Club of Falcon?

  • 13 Comments
  • by: dslater

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/i…

Tweet
Share

Comments

13 thoughts on “The Republican Club of Falcon?”

  1. Are you really afraid that he’s going to take votes away from Bidlack?

    Either way, attacking him here is pretty lame.

    He has more honor and integrity, not to mention knowledge about the Iraq War, in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

    1. “Attacking”?  I just wrote what I saw at the event.  To argue that his statements weren’t strange in the least would be the least integrity-ridden thing I could have written.  To ignore his presence would also have been to ignore literally a third of the debate.  

      He was a sideshow.  He was strange.  His announcement that he would not be voting on legislation, or introducing legislation, etc. was one of the strangest pronouncements I’ve ever seen, even from a third-party candidate.  Sorry he’s got fans on this site because he posts here, but to ignore his presence would do a disservice to the readers.

      1. 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.

        Unless you heard Mr. Scott say this is what he was striving to do, you’re wrong. You weren’t there to “serve your readers” you were there as a party official and this post is designed to plug your candidate.  That’s fine, that’s what party officials do.  They probably marginalize third party candidates too.  But the faux disbelief is silly.  Don’t pretend your mentions of Mr. Scott were designed to maintain some sort of quasi-journalistic integrity.

      2. You went a long way from merely mentioning him. Your aim was to marginalize him. Your aim was to demean him.

        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.

        The mention of his abortion position was another dig. As if the majority of CD-5 voters don’t have a similar opinion. If you think they don’t, you really need to get back down to Earth.

        Brian knows he’s not going to win. He hasn’t campaigned, he hasn’t done much of anything other than put his name on the ballot. He is the first person to freely admit that calling him a quixotic candidate would be kind.

        Hal Bidlack has a distinguished record of service to this country, no one is denying that (notice that I said BXS has more honor in his little finger than YOU have in your entire body) but he is only slightly less quixotic than Barron. And that’s only because he has a major party attached to his candidacy.

        Then there’s this:

        Sorry he’s got fans on this site because he posts here, but to ignore his presence would do a disservice to the readers.

        Oh dear! How did we ever get along without your insightful reporting! I would have never known that this event occured without you.

        Oh, wait, there was a much, much, much better diary already written before you posted yours. And it was on the front page.

        It’s your right to be a campaign shill, but at least do it knowing that bashing one of the members of this community in a bullying political attack is most definitely a disservice to the readers of this site.

        1. I didn’t marginalize Scott.  His own statements marginalized him.

          And if you don’t think he was truly a sideshow to the main event — an actual debate between Lamborn and Bidlack, then you really are the one not living in reality.

          (By the way, I’d be willing to wager that the majority of CD5 voters don’t have the same abortion views as Scott.  I’m sure that they are “pro-life”, but I don’t think a majority are quite to the extreme as Scott announced last night.)

          Finally, I’m not hiding under any kind of pseudonym.  Readers know my bias and know from whence I come.  I’m not trying to compete with Newsman’s diary — I am writing one from the Democratic perspective.  

          As for a “bullying political attack” — I really don’t understand how I’m “bullying” anybody by using a candidate’s own words against him.  He’s proven quite able to respond for himself.

            1. You and Dan both have points.  There’s no need to slam Scott, he’s not a threat to anyone.  But, this is also just a blog and if he wants to attack a guy who’s going to get all of 8 votes he might as well fire away…

              I think most of us respect Scott as a blogger, but as a “candidate” for office, I generally agree w/ Dan.  It’s Scott’s time and his right to run for office as he sees fit, but there’s a real debate and real election going on down there and in a lot of ways Scott is distracting from that.  There’s nothing wrong with that, but when Dan calls him on it I think it’s OK.

              Just my thoughts…

              1. To do so in a respectful manner.

                Whenever Barron talks critically about Col. Bidlack, it’s about the issues, or about positions. He doesn’t condescend.

          2. I am going to give D Slater a partial pass on part of this. For this reason.

            It’s 4 days before the election, and a lot of partisan things are said in the heat of the moment.  He at least is honest about who he is and what he is shilling about, and who he is shilling for.  Therefore, its not really shilling is it?

            His own candidate was sincerely appreciative of the RCF event, publicly thanked and praised them for putting it together, and said so after the event also.  AFAIK, he was well treated, and got a giant infomercial for free out of the forum.

            So, What’s your beef with the group that was able to put this together?  That they weren’t able to put more together?  That they didn’t endorse the Democrat? That they did something in particular that was unfairly and deliberately slanted to favor one candidate over the other?  I know that is not true, or you or someone from the Bidlack camp would have blown their stack and made their displeasure known, and I have heard nothing of the sort, quite the opposite.

            So I am left to conclude, you are just one more unhappy Liberal with Conservative El Paso County.  

            The El Paso Republican Party did you a giant favor by scheduling a competitive event at Mr Biggs across town at the same time as the RCF’s event. I wonder if the fact that the RCF called for the EPC party chairman;s resignation a few months ago had anything to do with it? (JK- Of course not.)

            Half the RCF and most of the EPC Republicans were at the McCain Palin 96 hour kickoff event, and that left the audience 75% Democrats at the REPUBLICAN Clubs event, in a county and area (Falcon) that is 2 to 1 Republican.

            What could you possibly complain about, except that your guy will go down to an even larger defeat than suffered by Jay Fawcett in 2006.  Other than that, all is well RIGHT !

    2. .

      and while Mr. Slater was intentionally (but only slightly) dishonest when saying that I strove to come across as eccentric,

      it was not to slur or malign me, it was merely an exercise of literary license,

      and I don’t begrudge him that.  

      .

      There are two aspects of Mr. Slater’s post that offend me, and neither has to do with insinuations about my reputation or honor.  

      First, I find it intellectually inconsistent for him to advocate for treating an extremely progressive candidate,

      an openly atheist candidate,

      as if he were a more serious contender for the position than me.  

      Someone might remind him that CD-5, which includes Canon City, where Dan lives, didn’t much like Lamborn in 2006, and still gave him 60% of the vote.  

      Teller, Park, El Paso, Fremont, Lake and Chaffee Counties make up the conservative portion of CD-5, not just the northeast portion of Colorado Springs.  

      For all the liberal/ progressive positions that made Jay Fawcett unacceptable to voters here, at least he admitted to believing in God.  Proclaiming his “freedom” from the constraints of belief in God, Hal is simply out of touch with the District.  If that isn’t apparent to you, Dan, you might be in the wrong line of work.  

      It’s A-OK for you to be privately condescending toward us “mouth breathers,” as you’ve referred to people of faith.  But it’s bizarre to think that we could be tricked into voting against our values.  

      Maybe I’m too emotionally fragile, but I was also offended that you blithely assume that the two-party system is serving our needs as a nation.  I assume you developed that perspective out of naked self interest, which I completely understand.  You are an employee of the Colorado Democratic Party.  

      If voters were to reject the Democrat-Republican duopoly in favor of electing representatives who put community and national interests ahead of party interests, you’d be out of a job.  

      You blithely assume that, in this time of unparalleled crisis, we don’t need a candidate who comprehends the crisis before us, and who is dedicated to solving problems,

      but that more business as usual from a Congress that has repudiated its Constitutional role (as counterweight to an overreaching President) will do just fine.  

      You, sir, put party before nation, like almost everyone else representing the two branches of the Republicrat Party.  

      You say to yourselves, “let someone else fix the mess.  We’re too busy pillaging the treasury to be bothered with governance or responsibility.”  

      Well, I’m that someone else who is stepping up to clean up after you.  

      I blame the Democratic Congress for us being in Iraq today.  The 2006 election was all about throwing the GOP out so that the Dems could end the war.  Do you remember ?  

      And what has your tribe done with the reins of power ?  In trepidation and calculation, the Dems have exerted themselves NOT to end the war but to fix the blame.  

      .

      I pulled a lot of punches Thursday night.  While I predicted gas prices skyrocketing on 5 November, and 25% unemployment by this time next year (the DOL has several measures of unemployment, and U6 is near 12% right now,)  

      I didn’t want to frighten voters too much.  They like to vote for optimists, regardless of veracity.

      But after 8 years of having an effective enemy of the Constitution ensconced in the White House, the USA faces an existential threat.

      Osama bin-Laden could never in his wildest dreams caused as much harm to the nation as VP Cheney has done, and we won’t be able to just ride this one out.  Without an extreme course correction, this country collapses in less than a decade.  

      Dan, nobody in your party seems to understand the dire situation we’re now in.  Nobody in your party wants to force change on the electorate, lest you lose the next election.  This paucity of either courage or leadership means that your party has no solution to the coming train wreck.  

      And yet, you tear down someone who has a solution ?  

      .

  2. D Slater observed

    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.

    I know a little about how this came together, and you sir do not know the whole story.

    The one and only reason this happened is that Hal Bidlack, AND Doug Lamborn, AND their campaign advisers all agreed this was the most level playing field to be had in this environment.  Yes, it is the REPUBLICAN club of Falcon.  Yes some of its members are Lamborn supporters, some supported Bently Rayburn, and 2 founding members voted for Jeff Crank.  The club did not endorse anyone in the primary, and never does.

    Now that he is the Republican nominee, you bet the REPUBLICAN club of Falcon is the Lamborn wing of the County, and the Palin wing, and the McCain wing, and the Schaffer wing.

    But don’t confuse those things with why this debate (they called it a candidate forum) worked.

    It was in the best interest of all 3 candidates to participate.  Period.

    The RCF has a reputation of hosting fair events, and has won praise from challenger Amy Lathen who ran against RCF club member Mike Burton (Kristy Burton’s father) and praised the RCF for their forum and fairness

    in her county commissioner race to replace Doug Bruce.

    If they can do that when one of their own members is the candidate, they can and did do it again in the HD-15 race.

    Dan Lanotte (who is the RCF’s activities chairman)is a Waller supporter and on his campaign team, yet the RCF won praise from Waller’s Democrat challenger Michelle Maksimowicz who debated Waller at an RCF event.

    I Love the spin that Hal would go anywhere and debate Lamborn with anyone conducting the forum. Truth is, the RCF gave the Bidlack people most of what they asked for.  The RCF would not compromise with any of the candidates on format, as they know what works, and that was not negotiable.

    Bottom line. The RCF has some simple principles that guide their forum’s.  Treat every candidate like you would want to be treated. Set clear rules, and apply them fairly to everyone. If you focus on the issues, the comparison will favor the right person.

    And because of that:

    IT WAS IN ALL 3 CANDIDATES PERSONAL BEST INTEREST TO PARTICIPATE.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

47 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!