With days before the President will announce his Afghanistan strategy to the nation, a Democrat considered one of the best chances to pick up a seat in the House of Representatives criticized the proposed escalation and characterized it as “more reflective of Bush policy.”

Bill Hedrick, who came within 2 points of defeating Rep. Ken Calvert in a Riverside/Orange County district in 2008 and is running again in 2010, hastily convened a conference call to announce his opposition to the policy, leaked by multiple news outlets on Tuesday. Hedrick has previously based his candidacy to opposition to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I do not support the President’s escalation, and believe that it must be attached to a solid exit strategy,” said Hedrick, whose district has been targeted by the DCCC as a top pickup opportunity. He believes that his opinion reflects the desires of both Democrats and Republicans in his district.

Hedrick highlighted the corruption in the Afghan government as a major issue that makes him believe that escalation is unwise. He does not understand how adding more troops will resolve the problem of aid and resources failing to reach the Afghan people. “We need to accelerate efforts from the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to provide that direct support for the people,” he said. Hedrick does not believe that escalation would make the country safer or address the broader needs of the Afghan population.

Like many other critics, Hedrick emphasized the cost of a continued occupation. “Given the situation in my distict and throughout the country, we really need to invest in our own infrastructure. If this bears the cost set out by the OMB, of a million dollars per year per troop, it’s not just counter-productive but unaffordable. My district has a 15% unemployment rate, the real number may be higher when you include discouraged workers. An open-ended commitment means that we’ll steal hundreds of billions of dollars from the future that we can ill afford.”

Asked about the “war surtax” idea pushed by Rep. David Obey and other House Democrats, Hedrick felt that his preference would be not to go at all. However, he said that “if we do go down this road, it ought to have some way of financing it. We shouldn’t do it on credit, like the Bush policy.” He hoped that the recognition that wars must be paid for would “put some brakes” on the policy, and that getting more of the public “skin in the game” in the form of dollars would broaden the sacrifice.

Hedrick commended the work of antiwar activists, who have forced the idea of an exit strategy, presumed to be part of the strategy, into the conversation. But he said “the best exit strategy would be to not send 35,000 more troops in the first place. Some stories talked about off-ramps, but the better idea is not to get on the freeway.” Hedrick warned that, without a timetable for withdrawal, the war could stretch into perhaps a 20-year commitment, and that’s “not a cost taxpayers are willing to bear.”

The fact that a top recruit in a political environment seen as favorable to Republicans would argue so strongly in opposition to escalation signals that the rank and file of the Democratic Party do not see standing behind Obama on this as entirely politically viable.