Would the Founders Support Doug Lamborn in CD5?

It has been the conventional wisdom that incumbents have an advantage over challengers in political races. That may have been true in the past but does it still hold true?

Doug Lamborn is making the argument he is a “tested conservative” and that voters need to send him back to Washington based on his consistent conservative record. He adds that the voters in Colorado’s CD5 should be careful not to trust his opponent Robert Blaha, a lifetime businessman who has no voting track record for the voters to evaluate. Trust the incumbent and question the challenger’s motives seem to be the foundation of his campaign.

The Tea Party activists have an inherent distrust of incumbents and have made it one of their signature issues to throw everyone out that wonders from their principles, without consideration of party affiliation. The Tea Party is more concerned about principles over party, imagine that! So the question in CD5 is whether or not conservatives, Tea Party activists, and republicans agree that Lamborn has acted in a principled manner or not. If not, do they believe Robert Blaha is a good alternative to the incumbent?

All of my principles in elections revolve around the constitution and the intentions of our founders. Was it the founder’s intention to have career politicians? Would the founders have agreed that earmarks as a policy should be utilized to pass legislation? Would the founders have sanctioned travel by representatives paid for by people that have an interest in receiving money from the US treasury? I think not. I also don’t want to overstate my concerns about Lamborn but in my opinion he also has a very low “likability factor.” Likability is simply the way people perceive you when they interact with you. Lamborn is caustic and abrasive which does not serve him well and especially when his positions are challenged. He comes off as an angry man.

The founders were by no means perfect and I believe would have analyzed each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in context to the time and needs of the central government. There is no doubt that our central government is woefully lacking in representatives that have experience working in the private economy. Too many representatives are lawyers, and too many representatives have little firsthand knowledge of what small businesses need to be successful. It is a time in history where we need representatives that know business. Not simply voting for pro-business legislation but targeting and eliminating the regulations and departments that stifle private business growth.

The criticism Lamborn has leveled on Blaha’s businesses are partially related to the complex maze and unclear rules that so many government departments put on businesses. Businesses today have to spend too much time managing regulations rather than managing business. So when Doug talks negatively about private companies that struggle keeping up with the mounting regulatory burdens I have to ask him: what are you doing to make it easier for businesses to operate? Blaha has created many jobs, how many has Doug created? Blaha has run many companies: how many companies has Doug Lamborn run?  

Is Doug Lamborn a “safe bet” for conservatives, Tea Party activists, and conservatives? Maybe, but if you’re looking for leadership and someone that understands the private sector he is not your choice. Term limits can be imposed this June and are supported by Blaha. I am voting against the incumbent because I believe in this election the founders would agree with me. Do you think the founders would support the incumbent in CD5?