Scott McInnis or Dan Maes? The self-dealing plagiarist or the salesman who, if he wins the nomination for governor, will be the least-qualified major-party candidate for that office in living memory.
No wonder so many Republican ballots are still sitting on kitchen counters around the state. Mel Gibson is likely to be keynote speaker at an ADL convention before McInnis or Maes triumphs in a three-way race against John Hickenlooper and Tom Tancredo, but conscientious voters like to make a choice. Who can blame them if they’re slow to pull the trigger?
In truth, however, Republicans face an even more difficult decision in the U.S. Senate race, and for the opposite reason. Ken Buck and Jane Norton are both attractive conservative candidates who have a shot — and perhaps a good shot — at defeating Democrat Michael Bennet given the popular reaction against the federal government’s orgy of spending these past two years that Bennet supported and defends.
Nor is Bennet’s underdog primary opponent, Andrew Romanoff, a crusader for fiscal restraint.
But who would be the GOP’s stronger nominee for the general election, Republicans must wonder, particularly given Buck’s serial misadventures in recent weeks?
Not all controversies are created equal. If Buck can survive a primary after referring to “dumbasses at the Tea Party,” he surely won’t be damaged by the outburst in the general election. The same goes for how Buck distanced himself last month from an anti-Obama tirade by Tancredo before feeling obliged to backtrack.
Both incidents probably help Buck in the main event by hinting that he’s not as far right as some ardent supporters believe.
The other two flaps dogging Buck are not so easily dismissed. His claim that voters should choose him “because I don’t wear high heels” was innocuous given the context — he was basically saying “because I’m not Jane Norton, who talks about this gender difference way too much” — but the video clip is being used to portray him as a knuckle-dragger. If a fellow Republican is willing to stoop to the claim that Buck thinks “a woman’s place is in the house,” as Norton does on her campaign site, you can imagine what Democrats will do with his words.
More damaging still is the month-old revelation that Buck received an official reprimand while serving in the U.S. attorney’s office for conversations with a defense attorney. Never mind that Buck’s actions had no effect on the ultimate outcome of that decade-old case; the incident is tailor-made for lurid exploitation, as we’ve already seen.
So the safe pick is clearly Norton, right? No scandal; stays on message; addresses issues head on and, for the most part, with commendable detail; willing to kick an opponent in the groin, even when wearing high heels.
Yes, but wait. Buck has . . . well, if not exactly charisma, a sort of relaxed, natural quality that contrasts with Norton’s highly structured approach, as well as a sense of humor that could wear well with voters as the fall campaign grinds on. For that matter, he is the fresh-faced long shot that voters supposedly crave in this year of the insurgent.
So if Buck is the higher-risk candidate, he may have greater upside, too.
Meanwhile, the two are pretty much Tweedledum and Tweedledee on the issues, with the exception of the war in Afghanistan.
Hence the dilemma for Republicans. By contrast, the Maes-McInnis choice amounts to a sideshow.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
