Unless you’ve been living off the grid and in a cave far from even the smallest hamlet the past few months, you know that it has been an unbelievably nasty campaign season in Colorado, fueled by enormous amounts of money and passion.
It’s worth asking, we think, what we as voters have learned from the ordeal.
From where we sit, we think this season got out of control. Some of the personal attacks were so unfair as to create a chilling effect for future would-be candidates who might have plenty to offer but good reputations they wish to keep intact.
We don’t mind hardball politics as long as the debate remains fair and focused. Democracy isn’t pretty. The stakes are high and the issues that face the nation are monumentally important.
So we expect rough-and-tumble fights that help toughen candidates and inform the electorate.
And despite our feeling that the cycle got too bloody in its final days, we do think that overall, democracy still was served.
Even in this poisonous atmosphere — maybe even because of it — hard questions about real issues did get asked and discussed. For the most part, the debate was over real issues. Not who wears an American flag lapel pin. Or who wears high heels.
In the U.S. Senate race, the most mean-spirited race, we have faulted Sen. Michael Bennet for attacks that we believed were unfair. But special- interest groups swinging on the behalf of Ken Buck, the Weld County district attorney, also swung wild.
Television ads savaged Bennet on his nearly two years in Washington, which was to be expected. The Democrat was a loyal vote on President Obama’s most transformative issues, and voters should be able to question those votes. But the ugly stuff, about Bennet as corporate raider looting companies, also came back.
Ads against Buck focused on his character. How would the conservative Republican with Tea Party backing govern, given his campaign gaffes and missteps and re-configured primary positions?
Ultimately, those debates needed to take place, because voters needed to consider the potential strengths and weakness of the candidates.
How would Bennet govern going forward in a post-stimulus Washington stuck with a flawed health care law that will demand further reform?
Could Buck, an untested strict social conservative, keep to his promise of focusing on fiscal issues?
Voters, ultimately, got telling answers to those questions as both candidates also made themselves available for debates and public forums.
Hopefully, the barrage of negative ads won’t cause the electorate to grow too cynical about the process, even as they demand changes going forward. This is still the most open and fair system in the world.
