The Denver Post Endorses Bennet — While Acknowledging That He Is A Spineless Yes Man For The Obama/Reid Agenda

I guess it’s no surprise that the Denver Post editorial board endorsed Michael Bennet for the U.S. Senate.  The board has made a welcome shift toward the center in recent years, but still skews to the left.  But they sure damn Bennet with faint praise in doing so.  In fact, I would say they make a pretty strong case against him.

Bennet’s positives, in the Post’s view: “We’ve long admired him for his smarts, his independence and his coalition-building when he was Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s chief of staff and the Denver Public Schools superintendent.”  That’s about it.

Negatives: “But that Michael Bennet has been mostly AWOL since he was appointed senator in January 2009.”  Exactly. 

Bennet had a shot at being “Colorado’s Senator — not President Obama’s senator or Harry Reid’s senator,” as the Post puts it, and he failed miserably:

We endorsed the president and many of those Democrats because we thought the country needed a new direction [and we got one]. But with that newfound control of Washington, Obama and the Democrats overreached. They moved the country to the left, helping to stick future generations with trillions in debt by reckless spending on a stimulus package and other programs, legislating health-care reform that failed to slow the growth in costs, and lavishing billions on corporate bailouts and takeovers.

Sen. Bennet, unfortunately, has helped push that agenda along.

If he had bucked his party and his president on just one major issue [one? nice to see your standards are so high], and in turn shown some Colorado independence, it would have been much easier to endorse him. Instead, his 20-month career has been frustrating to watch, leaving voters, and us, with a difficult choice.

On Dec. 21, 2009, for example, he made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, blasting Washington lawmakers for their dirty dealing as they patched together a health care bill larded with special deals. It was an eloquent speech and a devastating indictment on all that’s wrong with Washington. Then, three days later, he voted for the bill.

The current health care bill is law because of Bennet’s one vote.

That vote, and his speech, epitomize his short Senate career: So much potential, yet not enough spine.

For 20 months, he wouldn’t take a position on the Employee Free Choice Act — a giveaway to labor unions that makes it easier to organize — because he was worried about ticking off labor and getting a primary challenger (which he got anyway).

Should he win a six-year term, Bennet needs to show independence and not be an automatic vote for the Obama agenda.

Independence?  A spine?  What are the odds of that? 

Bennet is not going to grow the spine he has been sorely lacking as he marched ever leftward to the drumbeat of Obama and Harry (may he soon be unemployed) Reid just because the Post tells him he should.  He had lots of chances to prove he could be an independent mind, but instead was an automatic vote for the disastrous Obama agenda. 

Yet the Post is more worried that Ken Buck might be an automatic vote against the Obama agenda (which he would be) than the prospect that Bennet will be an automatic vote for Obama’s odious agenda (as he has been and would continue to be). 

Indeed, Bennet has consistently shown himself to be a spineless coward.  When asked about numerous issues, he gives misleading answers intended to hide his views from voters.  See here, and here, and here.  Where is a guy like that going to find a spine?  If he found one, Bennet would use it to genuflect to Obama anyway.

Frankly, what appears to be driving the endorsement is Buck’s social conservatism, as the Post note that he “oppos[es] abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother. He also opposes gay marriage, a repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and the DREAM Act — all measures we support.”  The first is irrelevant, given Roe v. Wade.  Abortion law is not changing any time soon regardless of what Ken Buck would prefer.  And are the other issues really the ones we should be most concerned about this election? 

Are social issues really the most pressing thing we have to worry about today?  Or are the trillions of debt, unchecked spending, and massive government takeovers and regulation that Bennet supported during his short time in office?  Assuming that you disagree with Buck on social issues (as I generally do), the answer to these questions should decide your vote.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Post let its disdain for social conservatives overwhelm its purported concerns about the unchecked reckless taxing, spending, and regulating by the White House and Democrats in Congress.

Published in: on October 15, 2010 at 3:40 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. […] I wrote several times before the election, such as here, Bennet had plenty of chances to prove he could be an independent mind, but instead was an […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: