If Michael Bennet goes to bed Tuesday night a lame-duck senator, as polls suggest is possible, the analysts will have a field day ladling out blame.
They will critique the way he spent (squandered?) his massive war chest, organized his ground game, or failed to migrate to the left early enough to dispel suspicions that he might be one of those loathsome corporate toadies whom Democratic activists detect with such amazing frequency.
The experts will conjure up 50 ways his campaign failed to deliver the goods, and maybe some of them will even be true. But for me, the only worthwhile lesson will be one that Bennet could usefully employ even if he squeaks to victory Tuesday and earns another round of combat. To wit: Since you can’t always control your destiny in a profession as wild and unpredictable as politics, you might as well try to be yourself.
Bennet has been a senator for 18 months, which means he’s voted often enough for us to have a pretty good idea of where he stands politically. But take away those votes and what do you have?
What critical issues has Bennet promoted before his senatorial duties — or the tactical necessity of his campaign — pressed him into the fray? And please don’t cite the public insurance option, where his late conversion meshed a little too conveniently with his political needs.
When Bennet was Denver school superintendent, he was the poster boy for decisiveness — so much so that he could be faulted at times for failing to give the public enough warning of dramatic plans (think Manual High School). As The New Yorker wrote, “He liked to announce improbable goals, then defy expectations of failure.”
Once in the Senate, however, he became Mr. Risk Averse.
A few weeks ago during an editorial board meeting, Bennet was asked about his stance on cap and trade or a carbon tax. More than 500 words later, we still had little idea what he thought about either, except that “there are good ways of doing carbon taxes” and “good ways of doing a market-based solution” and that he would like “a market-based solution here . . . but the devil is in the details.”
No mention, you’ll notice, of the Kerry-Lieberman bill that was very much a going concern at the time. To the contrary. Bennet maintained senators “just haven’t had proposals” yet to consider.
His discussion of entitlement spending was even more amorphous. He even seemed to reject the idea that we need politicians who are aggressive advocates for very specific spending limitations or reforms if we’re going to conquer the federal deficit.
Before that happens, Bennet said, we need “institutional support around this place to be advocates on behalf of the next generation of Americans on this question.”
Pure pabulum.
And let’s not even bother recounting Bennet’s acrobatic straddles on the union-backed “card check” legislation that would imperil the secret ballot.
I’m not saying Bennet dithers over issues in every instance, or has failed to take up a crusade or two — his agenda for congressional reform being the most obvious. But on too many occasions he’s appeared determined to substitute overarching rhetoric for clear opinions, as if hostage to political ambition.
This is not an ideological complaint. I don’t expect to agree with Bennet on most of the big issues. It’s just that I rather admired the forthright fellow who was Denver’s last school superintendent and have been wondering where he went.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
