“Conservadems”? Mark Udall and Michael Bennet? That’s what a lefty MSNBC television host has dubbed Colorado’s two new senators. Back on planet Earth, however, the more relevant question is whether they even deserve to be called moderates.
Both have joined the Moderate Dems Working Group of 15 or so senators. But joining a coalition dominated by centrists such as Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh reveals nothing about their actual location on the political spectrum. Former Sen. Tim Wirth belonged to the moderate Democratic Leadership Council when he represented Colorado, yet his politics were as reliably liberal as almost anyone in that chamber.
As much as we all hate litmus tests (or say we do), maybe it’s time to establish a few. For openers, a true moderate will refuse to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, which strips the secret ballot from workers deciding whether to unionize. A moderate also will balk, at least during a severe recession, at imposing a huge indirect tax on the economy in the form of cap-and-trade emissions fees. And a moderate will give more than lip service to reining in the spending spree contemplated in the president’s budget, especially in light of the grim deficit forecast released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office ($1.8 trillion just this year!).
Why, a moderate will even vote against the budget if necessary to slow the hemorrhaging red ink.
Although a liberal while in the House, Udall naturally tacked toward the center during last year’s Senate campaign — embracing offshore drilling and nuclear power, to cite two examples. Was his trek to the middle merely a feint or did he mean it? The jury awaits more evidence.
Bennet, meanwhile, is not quite the political mystery he was two months ago, but his votes so far hardly telegraph “centrist.” Still, he has plenty of time to show us whether the inventive practicality he displayed while at the helm of Denver’s schools will translate into significant maverick votes.
So let’s welcome the Moderate Dems Working Group as a potentially valuable counterweight to the much larger contingent of Democrats on the left. And hope that Udall and Bennet genuinely mean it.
• • •
During the national temper tantrum over AIG bonuses this week, Rep. Jared Polis offered a clever and unnervingly accurate appraisal of what happens when businesses throw themselves into the arms of government — and then proceeded to undermine his argument with his vote.
The 2nd District congressman, along with every other Colorado House Democrat, supported a measure that would retroactively confiscate 90 percent of the bonuses. But Polis’ reasons were apparently unique: He intended the tax as a shot across the bow of businesses angling for a federal bailout.
“Businesses beware,” Polis declared, “You do not want the federal government or the American people owning your business. We will hunt down your executives with pitchforks, we will subpoena your boards and haul you before Congress, we will use personal rhetoric to decry your greed, we will make life so miserable that you will leave. And no, our cruelty will not be reserved for your executives. Your workers will be bureaucratized, your competent managers squeezed out, your travel and conferences cancelled, your work hours extended, your incentive structure turned upside down.”
Yes, that about covers it, congressman. But why then vote for the measure unless you’re trying, in effect, to have it both ways?
Why not admit you were tempted to vote for the bill as a warning to businesses but that you simply couldn’t bring yourself to support such an immoral, mail-fisted confiscation of wealth?
Years from now, Polis’ vote will mark him as just another member of the congressional rabble that surrounded the AIG manor and heaved torches onto the roof — even if he did ridicule the arsonists he helped.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com
