In CD-5 (and CD-6) we have a thankless job for a volunteer. Run as the Democratic candidate in an almost impossible district. Oh, and we want someone who is professional, polished, competent, thoughtful, and has 6 months to devote full time to this quest. In return you will get dragged through the mud and called every dirty name in the book. What a deal.
To me it's surprising that we get anyone to do this. It's simply amazing that we get someone who is, by every measure, a really good candidate that we can be proud of to have represent the Democratic party. Hal Bidlack is a really good candidate. And candidates like Hal are one of the key means by which we implement the 50 state strategy.
Normally when I do these meetings my main question is "what are you going to do in office." But in this case I started off with a more basic question - "how on earth do you have a prayer of winning" (I said it a little nicer than that).
I got a realistic answer. It's a very tough fight. Jay Fawcett moved the Dem vote up from 20% to 40%, but that next 10% is a gigantic battle. Hal talked very honestly about the situation, but at the same time it was about how he could win. Not how he unquestionably will win, but how it is reachable. I think that balance speaks very well to both his staying grounded in reality but also with an eye on pulling off an upset.
He also discussed at length how it is important in a Democracy for their to be two choices on a ballot. How even if one party has zero chance of winning, it is incumbent on them to put forward a quality candidate. A lot of people talk about service to our country - Hal is practicing it. I guess after 20 years in the Air Force it's natural for him, but I find it impressive.
As he said, this is not just a choice on the ballot. This is having an impassioned advocate to present an alternative approach to solving our problems in the election. In the debates, in the media, in the ads. Regardless of the odds, the voters in CD-5 are going to hear about both approaches.
Hal's approach is very measured. At first I considered that a severe negative. There are tremendous advantages to a Barack Obama who can lift a crowd and carry them along with them. But as I thought about it, I'm not so sure. Hal has to reach people who have never voted for a Democrat in their life. The most effective way to reach them may be to almost be in stealth mode, to not stand out until after they have considered his words.
To sum up, can Hal win? I have no idea. But that's lots better than no way.
So what do we get with Hal in the House? First off, he's a realist. He understands that as a junior member of a 435 person body, his influence is minimal. But it is much greater as a Democrat than as a Republican as we Democrats will control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. And that's a significant help for Colorado Springs.
What lit him up was talking about fair trade. He saw the damage done to Colorado Spring's economy when Intel pulled out. And he saw that it is not "free trade" when China pays Intel to move the fab to the PRC. He supports global trade, he understands how high tariffs have historically done great damage to all economies. But he also sees that having no barriers as other countries practice predatory economic policy won't work either.
This to me is a very interesting emphasis. A number of House members do this country great service by investing a lot of their time and energy on a difficult issue and working with others to find ways to address the problem. This is one of those problems that does need a couple of members who make it their major emphasis. He will serve the country well in this capacity.
The other major topic that lit him up was early American History. We got on the topic of Alexander Hamilton - I did not realize that he has spent a lot of time studying Hamilton. If it wasn't for having to write this blog, I would have happily spent the rest of the time discussing this. He had a very interesting take on Hamilton's speeches vs his true intentions at the Annapolis convention that I think makes a lot of sense. I also agree with him that Hamilton was one of our essential founding fathers. (I think the Washington/Hamilton partnership was arguable the most astute political team in human history.)
I think there is great advantage in having politicians with a strong knowledge of our history. It helps put what we do today in perspective. And in many cases it gives us examples of what has worked and what has not worked.
He's an exceptional candidate and it's the candidates we have stepping up in races like this that show the true strength and depth of the Democratic party.
