By Lindy Browning | Contributor, Rocky Mountain Voice
The last meeting between Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District candidates, Democrat Adam Frisch and Republican candidate Jeff Hurd, took place Monday, Sept. 30, at the Hoag Theater in Pueblo.
From the beginning of the debate it was clear that moderator Earnest Luning was going to ask the candidates some difficult questions and he wanted specific answers. At some points during the debate, he asked follow up questions to get more specific answers for the public.
Luning, representing Colorado Politics, set the tone of the debate by asking both candidates how they were going to work with U.S. Rep. Lauren Bobert, who has represented the 3rd District and is now running in the 4th District in Northern Colorado and on the Eastern Plains, should she win in November.
“I have a different style than her, but I think we agree on a lot for rural Colorado,” Hurd said, noting he could work with Boebert on rural energy, economic policy, agriculture and reining in big government.
Frisch notes he could work with Bobert when she is focused on rural Colorado, and “the other 95% of the time she can do her own stuff,” he said.
The candidates were asked what they could do to turn down the temperature in Congress. Frisch noted that he would use his personality. Hurd thought that the constituents in the district were tired of the “angertainment” and would welcome his approach to working in their best interest.
“I don’t fight loud, but I do fight smart,” he said.
When asked about how they planned to lower the cost of living in the district, Frisch discussed driving 70,000 miles (a number he has continually talked about in both debates) and said, “…wages are 30% lower than in the big cities. I want to make sure we have better wages.”
He rolled that discussion into an attack on Hurd, claiming that he (Frisch) doesn’t take corporate PAC money, hinting that Hurd would be beholden to his donors.
“You will be my bosses in Congress, and I hope you will hold me accountable for that. My first priority is the Constitution and then this district,” Hurd said. He laid claim to being ‘his own man’ and will not be influenced by any donor.
Hurd was quick to point out that Frisch also took corporate money in large quantities from, as an example, the Trial Lawyers Association, American Airlines, Toyota, and Hollywood. A quick search through the Secretary of State donor filings confirms that Frisch does indeed have corporate donors, many of whom donated large sums.
When asked about protecting Colorado water, both candidates agreed it’s a priority. The difference between the ways they would accomplish that was significant.
“I’m going to ask to sit on a committee in Congress that has a direct effect on water… I want to support local water leaders in Colorado as they work on updating the 2007 guidelines,” Frisch said. “ I don’t want a legislative or judicial solution.”
Hurd leaned into more direct action solutions.
“We need to reform The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), that interferes with the ability to construct high-altitude distributed water storage, and we need to get rid of invasive species like tamarisk and Russian olives that suck up all the water,” he said.
While both candidates correctly identify the top concerns of their voters, their approach to solving the concerns lie in sharp contrast. Hurd voiced direct and immediate legislative policy remedies, and Frisch repeatedly and on most issues, wanted to support and empower committees and groups as they work toward solutions.
Those top concerns are the economy, high cost of living, agriculture, energy, water, healthcare solutions and abortion.
When asked about high housing costs, Frisch said he wanted to get as much money as possible (from tax revenue to government) and return it to the district; get rid of red tape and bureaucracy, then use that to build housing supply.
“That sounds like Democrat math to me,” Hurd said, noting that he prefers to focus on why the cost of lumber, steel and building materials is high. “Bad energy policy is a hidden tax on all these goods and services.”
Hurd pointed out that unnecessary regulation, in the form of mandates required to meet renewable energy building codes and environmental regulations, make building homes more costly and make the permitting process longer.
On the issue of abortion, Frisch supports federal legislation that protects a woman’s right to choose with no limitations or restrictions. Hurd would not vote for a federal ban on abortion, he said. He adds that as a constitutional conservative, he believes the Supreme Court decided that issue correctly. He concurred that the issue should be decided at the state level under the 10th Amendment. On par with Ronald Reagan’s belief, he is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Both candidates support IVF treatments.
Both candidates agree that Social Security must be protected, that anyone who has paid into Social Security should get full benefits. They also agree that in the long term there are going to have to be serious discussions, hard discussions about Social Security to keep it viable.
Frisch said that he does not think there should be a federal debt ceiling, while Hurd says guardrails are needed on spending.
“I want to get back to regular order and get back to having a balanced budget,” Hurd said.
This final debate covered many of the same topics as the first debate and there were not notable changes in the candidates’ positions. There was, however, a notable change in Frisch’s demeanor. During the first debate, he was significantly more provocative and contentious. This week, his style was more gracious and conciliatory toward his opponent. Hurd’s demeanor was unchanged. They both complimented each other as good fathers and husbands, and acknowledge the courage in each other to put themselves out there as candidates.