When you hold the title of preeminent newspaper in Colorado, candidates, seeking votes from large swaths of the electorate, cherish with anticipation your endorsement. Those receiving the endorsement will trumpet the validation as if it were a coronation, while those snubbed will predictably downplay the significance. All the while the media will claim their endorsement is nothing more than an opinion to generate discussion and debate.
The recent releases of The Denver Post’s candidate endorsements are proving to be more of an indictment than an endorsement.
The Post's editorial board endorsed Obama in 2008. It was clearly a tepid endorsement with dissent.
It was an endorsement made with the "economy" as the central focus to a back drop of two wars. At the time, their endorsement reflected their belief Obama had the steadier hand to lead our nation.
Consider the recent endorsements, which are certainly contrary to the Obama endorsement... I can hear Chuck Plunkett screaming "I told you so." Chuck's rants coupled with Dan Haley's doubts about the Obama endorsement must have turned to a resolve unkind to Obama and anyone who voted lock step with his failed policies.
On October 7th The Denver Post endorsed Gardner over Markey citing the following:
But while candidate Betsy Markey presented herself as a centrist who would be a good fit for the district, Congresswoman Markey quickly strayed to the left. We think the district would be better served by her opponent, state Rep. Cory Gardner.
The Denver Post this morning (100810) endorsed John Salazar citing his being a centrist. This is confusing given his votes for Obama Care and the stimulus bill. Perhaps the Denver Post felt his vote against Cap and Trade carried more weight. What his vote on Cap and Trade does reflect is a willingness to remain somewhat independent from Pelosi.
He's a centrist Democrat with a fiscally conservative bent.
This evening's endorsement of Ryan Frazier seems to underscore the Denver Post's discontent with not only this administration but those candidates who lack independence and have shown a wanton disregard for their constituents. Plunkett again tips his and the editorial boards hand with this comment:
Since he was first elected in 2006, Perlmutter has been a solid vote for the Democratic majority in Congress, and has supported the Obama administration's over-reaching agenda. He voted for the cap-and-trade bill that would drive up energy costs as well as health care reform that will drive up costs, the so-called "card check" bill and the nearly $1 trillion stimulus.
So what does all of this mean? Does this translate into a tangible predictor on who the Denver Post will "coronate" for the US Senate Race?
Consider this; The Denver Post has certainly been quick to report every gaffe... (high heels come to mind.) They have cut him no slack on issues they perceive he has changed positions on. (I prefer to call them issues he has clarified.) They have devoted plenty of ink to the Golyansky reprimand with minimal ink dedicated to pointing out Golyansky was fined $25.00 and received one day of probation. This from a judge obviously sending a message to the US Attorney for bringing the case forward. But I digress.
So what about the Denver Post's reporting on Michael Bennet? Bennet has been scolded for his deceitful ads by the Denver Post. How he reacted to that scolding, which is to say he ignored the Denver Post, might have done some damage. I think it is more instructive to look at the Denver Post's comments when they endorsed Bennet over Romanoff. They point out why they endorsed him but they also point out concerns:
We have yet to see Bennet's independent streak emerge in the Senate, which has been disappointing. But we suspect if he wins in November, we will see him step out more forcefully on issues. We can only hope. He has promised us to be a budget hawk, working to cut back government spending and tackle the nation's serious structural problems when it comes to the budget.
Their endorsement, with the above cited caveats, harkens back to their endorsement "with doubts" of Obama in 2008.
The Denver Post excoriates Perlmutter for supporting "Obama's over-reaching agenda." I have to say Bennet bests Perlmutter and just might be more deserving of being the true rubberstamp for Obama's over-reaching agenda.
Ken Buck has certainly proven to be a leader and an unwilling to be subservient to the establishment. The GOP, on both a state and national level, threw everything they had at him to advance their candidate during the primary. What they failed to recognize was Ken's self confidence and determination...The GOP could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they taken time to vet Ken Buck. A short trip to Weld County would have given them plenty of reason to avoid tangling with him. Had they done their due diligence they would have learned that Ken Buck is a leader. He won election as the Weld District Attorney on a promise to cut crime and beat back the gang violence. He met his promise by cutting crime by 50 percent, depending on which statistical database one chooses.
The letter to Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland pointed out that Buck did increase spending from 2005 to 2009 by 30 percent because the office expanded district and county courtrooms. In that same time, population of Weld County increased by 41 percent and crime in Weld County has decreased by 50 percent, the letter said.
Will the Denver Post endorse Ken Buck? I would not hazard a guess. What I can predict is that their endorsement, if it is Ken Buck, will not be riddled with caveats. The Denver Post knows what they get with Ken Buck. More importantly, those same establishment politicians who expended so much energy and money on opposing his candidacy know what they are getting, and it is not a RUBBERSTAMP.