What part of this story is more pathetic: That a Colorado newspaper published an op-ed from the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party praising Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner for his “most bipartisan and effective” representation of even state Democrats and independents, or that Gardner approvingly tweeted out the gaslighting effort?
“Sen. Gardner has and will remain an effective voice for Republicans, Unaffiliateds and Democrats in Colorado.” Read more from @cologop Chairman @BuckForColorado in the @ColoradoSun here: https://coloradosun.com/2019/06/16/cory-gardner-ken-buck-senate-politics-opinion/ …
Opinion: Sen. Cory Gardner’s results are important for Colorado
coloradosun.com“Ken Buck says I’m bipartisan” may be a new low point for a struggling Republican politician. For now.
Rabid tea partier Rep. Ken Buck’s op-ed claim—yes, that is who now chairs the Colorado Republican Party—rides on declaring Gardner to be “one of the most bipartisan and effective senators Colorado has ever seen” by insisting that the things Gardner has done are bipartisan because Ken Buck says so, that’s why. Is Gardner’s push to move the Bureau of Land Management headquarters away from D.C. decision-makers and into Colorado “bipartisan,” or simply another cynical attempt at putting sand in the gears of a federal agency conservatives have long held a grudge against? Is Gardner’s sheepish coddling of Trump’s poorly defined visions of a militarized Space Force because “Space Command” might “potentially be headquartered in Colorado” a bipartisan stance, or just a cynical trade-off of a senator’s dignity for a bit of pork? It’s bipartisan, of course. If Donald Trump, Ken Buck, and Cory Gardner all support the same thing, it counts as bipartisan, no matter what the other parties might think.
Why does a puff piece on the glory of a teetering senator in for a tough re-election fight written up by, of all people, his own state party’s chair rate as “editorial” content to begin with? Isn’t that more commonly referred to as advertising? Papers commonly demand payment for associating themselves with this sort of brand-polishing, and there’s not a paper in America that’s flush on cash these days. Go figure.
Gardner has been in an awkward position of late, carefully tiptoeing through his duties using the Susan Collins strategy of occasionally expressing regret at the batshit insane activities of the rampaging administration while quietly voting to facilitate the batshittery after the cameras have turned away. (If he is still fishing for a campaign slogan, we might suggest Gardner for Senate: My Conscience Is Bipartisan Even If My Record Isn’t.)
Reluctant go-alongs such as Gardner and Collins appear to believe the bipartisan remorse, partisan results gimmick can be used indefinitely—that it has no expiration date, and that voters will buy it the 50th time as readily as the first. Both appear to be preparing to test that theory good and hard, in fact. We’ll see.
But if you’re going to choose that as your bit, maybe avoid touting claims of “bipartisanship” written up by one of the most divisive partisan figures in your state. That’s … a little much. It’s a bit like getting your mom to vouch for you on a dating app: You can do it, but it might not have the effect you think it does.