Me generation in 5th CD
6/1/2008 - 3:02pm
Republicans lost Congress in 2006, and may lose more seats in 2008, largely because members forgot it's all about the principles, the party, and the country, acting instead as if it was "all about me." Unless I'm missing something, that's also the reason two primary challengers are hounding Congressman Doug Lamborn in Colorado's 5th congressional district this summer.
As a freshman, Lamborn has compiled one of the most stellar conservative records in the US House or Senate, bar none. Club for Growth ranked him in their top 5 out of 535 members in the two bodies. National Journal rates him No. 1 among all House Republicans in consistently voting against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
He co-founded the House Caucus on Missile Defense and battled his way onto the diminished GOP side of the Armed Services Committee.
His endorsements for reelection, in addition to the Club for Growth, include National Federation of Independent Business, National Pro-Life Alliance, National Right to Work, Concerned Women for America, Republican National Coalition for Life, and the Minutemen Civil Defense PAC.
Other than that, he has done nothing, earned no one's admiration and support, and put up a big zero for the conservative cause, the state of Colorado, and the people of his Colorado Springs-centered district.
It's hard, therefore, to discern any motivation for the greater good or causes beyond themselves that would be driving ex-Hefley staffer Jeff Crank and retired Gen. Bentley Rayburn to force a rematch with Lamborn after losing to him two years ago.
These are two likable, accomplished, and capable men as best one can tell, but (news flash) we already have a solid Republican congressman in the 5th. So the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate objective reasons why either should displace the honored and honorable incumbent of their own party.
Absent some such reason -- and I've seen none -- the only remaining explanation is such nakedly selfish assertions as "I belong in Congress" or "He's not half the man I am" or "This is my destiny." Gag.
This is the kind of "me generation" thinking that eventually produced rank overspending, gross expediency, incumbency mania, scandal, and in some cases even prison terms for the GOP idealists of 1994 as things spiralled downward toward the voters' repudiation in 2006. Why dump a proven conservative whose record shows he is not susceptible to any of those things, and put another "all about me" contender in his place?
The sensible decision for Republican primary voters, come August, is to keep Rep. Lamborn right where he is, and encourage Mssrs. Crank and Rayburn to find other outlets for the public service which they unconvincingly claim is their only motive.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Lack of leadership??
I find it ironic that Rayburn & Crank supporters heave the insult that Lamborn lacks leadership armed with the PROVEN TRACK RECORD that Doug has had after serving for years in the state and US legislatures! You need to reread John Andrews' article because you missed important examples of LEADERSHIP - and it is far from a comprehensive list! WOW -- where does that leave Jeff Crank in comparison - never won an election, waffled on Ref. C and his Hefley support is about as beneficial as a Ted Haggard reference! The Hefleys couldn't get out of the state fast enough following the last election debacle -- what does that tell you? Great article John - I concur!!
I actually live in the 5th
I actually live in the 5th CD and will vote for one of the three.
Much of what John says is true. This a race without a reason, or at least a reason that I can determine. Both Crank and Rayburn were asked by the Gazette what they would do differently from Lamborn. Neither had an answer.
Of the three candidates, Lamborn is personally the least impressive, and seems to have the least well run campaign. The best campaign by far is being run by Jeff Crank. He has the support of much of the establishment but not all of it.
The arguments made by the offended commenter are a bit silly. El Paso County dominates the district. At the 5th CD assembly, El Paso was allocated 517 delegates. The other five combined were allocated 106. Like any election, if you lose the battle where the votes are, you lose, even if you win everywhere where the votes aren't.
Even though Lamborn is lackluster campaigner my bet is on him and would be even in a two person race. The primary is 60 days away. It is very difficult to beat an incumbunt who is free of scandal and everything but very minor nitpicking by both the Gazette and his opponents. That is the current situation.
This year's post primary campaign promises to be more gentile than 2006 when Hefley didn't care what down and up ballot Republicans he damaged as long as he could damage Lamborn. My focus has been less on who wins, any of the three will be fine Congressmen, but on the possibility of a post primary meltdown.
That doesn't seem to be on the horizon, making me a happy camper with not much need to write about the 5th CD.
a watcher
thecoloradoindex.com
More "backbone" nonsense from John Andrews.
Leave it to Andrews to endorse another dubious politician from the Springs by the name of Doug. Joel Hefley refused to endorse Lamborn. Lamborn's conservative agenda includes cutting all government funding for the arts. Then there was Lamborn's threat to one of his constituents who dared criticize him in the local paper. Nonsense is right concerning this wally world righty. Its only a matter of time for Mr. Lamborn. He barely made it last time. Hopefully the 5th will send him packing in November.
I'm actually offended by this!
Normally I respect John Andrews and I appreciate what he stands for, but this article represents a total lack of understanding of CD5 and how we ended up in the situation we currently have.
The ONLY reason Doug Lamborn won the 2006 election was because of the vagaries caused by a six way primary. Lamborn LOST 5 of the 6 counties in the district, but won El Paso (Colorado Springs) by a large enough margin to overcome his weakness in the rest of the district. He ended up winning by something like 411 votes over Jeff Crank--who won the other counties, but the mountain vote was split among a couple of different candidates. If this had been a head-to-head Lamborn vs. Crank, there would have been no contest, and we would not have been having this conversation!
Doug Lamborn is a good man, and his values are in the right place, but he is not a leader. Simply voting correctly on the issues presented before him does not make him a good Congressman. We need someone actually SPONSORING legislation, and pulling for our causes in Washington--not just responding correctly. As a resident of one of those "other" counties in the district, I need a Congressman who represents the ENTIRE district--not just Colorado Springs.
Honestly, Jeff Crank and Doug Lamborn are probably not very far apart on the actual issues, but Jeff is much more charismatic and articulate, and would be a much better champion for our causes here in the mountains.
After all, "incumbency mania" is what we are trying to avoid here. Why should Lamborn be re-elected simply because he is the incumbent?
Nonsense
Is it really your position that the measure of a good Congressman is whether or not the ideological interests group give the thumbs up? There is obviously a not insignificant percentage of people in the 5th CD who would like a Congressman who represents them and not just Grover Norquist or James Dobson.
http://steampoweredopinions.blogspot.com/2008/06/andrews-leave-doug-alone.html
More here