What's the term for a political nerd? Whatever it is, that's what Mike Coffman is. He came alive when he was discussing diving into exactly what problems should be addressed and how legislation should be crafted to do so. I think he is going to love the House - he'll be frustrated and upset and stymied at times - but he'll love it.
We started a bit late because he was up in Ft. Collins at a Republican meeting of a group put together by Bob Schaffer. We talked first about C.U. - it turns out we both went to school there at the same time.
He then talked quite a bit about our geopolitical position in the world, the mistakes the administration made in Iraq, and the issues we face needing to buy oil from people like Hugo Chavez. I don't know if his military background and time in Iraq is responsible for this, but he is definitely willing to speak to the mistakes made by our Republican president. Representative Coffman is not going to be one of those who claims the Republicans are always doing a great job - and the GOP will be better for his acknowledgment of their mistakes.
We then got into what the Colorado GOP needs to do to survive. He believes that we are in a cycle where the Democrats are doing better and the Republicans worse due to both the natural political cycle and the fact that the GOP in Washington, and especially the President, did a horrible job which made it even harder for Republicans running.
So put him in the category of Republicans don't need to become more conservative, don't need to become less conservative, they just need to not sell and and also need to ride out the storm. Interestingly enough, that also describes how Mike Coffman himself comes across - he's clearly a conservative but he's not a wing-nut and he's in a good position to ride out the storm.
Changing the subject for a second - I've interviewed Jared Polis, Betsy Markey, & Mike Coffman - all 3 of our freshman Representatives. Clearly all 3 are very excited to go to Washington to help our country. And all 3 are very focused on what they should be doing to effect that improvement. It is clearly what is driving them.
Now I don't think Colorado is unique (although we are the best) in the type of people we send. So what is it about the system that we send individuals to Congress that want to make the world a better place, yet the sausage factory that is Congress then produces so much dreck and pork and crap - and so little that is well crafted legislation? There's a systemic problem there.
Ok, back to Mike. He talked about his upcoming work in the house and did discuss the fact that as one of 435 reps, you have to concentrate and 1 or 2 specific things that you are going to accomplish. On most issues in front of the house you get to vote, but that's it. And he said that what he works on will depend on what committees he is appointed to.
He wants armed services - and as a vet has a good shot at it. And I think that also is illustrative of Mike, we have no large military base here so his first preference is not for something that helps him politically, but rather it is where his prime interests lie. And because he would be there for the strategic, and not the local, he would probably be a good selection for the committee (and also probably won't get it for that same reason).
Most of his conversation centered around national security and energy security - and he sees those as totally intertwined. He has very strong big picture views of this. He sees the need for alternative energy (and includes nuclear in that list - logically so) but is opposed to cap & trade (which is a disaster) and is opposed to a carbon tax. But nothing about how to get industry to convert to alternatives without the economic incentives of some kind of carbon cost. Maybe he has an answer to this (I should have asked a follow-up question) but I think while what he wants all sounds good - there's no way to both not touch the marketplace and yet switch from coal & gas to alternatives.
He also talked about the present market disaster and said that while he does see the need to get the financial markets back to health, he does not want to see the government putting money into other segments. He discussed this in terms of general approach to the economy and he clearly has a fundamental belief that the government should touch the market as little as possible.
It then ended with a sort of weird direction. He asked Tancredo's office to give him a list of the issues they see on immigration, and specifically with how they relate to homeland security. And he is going to try and move a couple of them forward, primarily a different approach to bringing in agricultural immigrant labor. When I asked he did say that this was partially because it was work Tancredo's office had done and he was taking over this district. At the same time, he also stated that he did not agree with many of Tancredo's on immigration.
So what do we get with Mike Coffman? Well only time will tell. But I think we have someone who is going to dive into the details of problems, listen to others who can discuss the history of the issue and what has and has not worked in the past, and will then attempt to come up with well-written legislation to address the issue. And if he ends up working with a couple of other Representatives, both Democratic and Republican, on these issues - they may craft bills where they never discuss what the Republican or Democratic view is - they'll just work together to write a good bill.
At the same time, he is clearly a Republican who wants to see the government have a light hand on the market and a light touch in the world. His first instinct in a slow-down is to reduce taxes, not increase spending. All in all, I think we have the potential for a really good Representative in Mike Coffman - even though I won't like how he votes a bunch of the time.
