February 28, 2017 10:02 AM UTC

The Denver Post, Sen. Cory Gardner's Bestest Friend

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

An editorial in today’s Denver Post continues a tradition that local political observers have become keenly aware of in recent years, not just around Sen. Cory Gardner but other favored Republican politicians: a disregard for the editorial board’s stated values in order to protect individual lawmakers.

But yes, today the editorial is about Cory Gardner, and his lack of public availability during last week’s congressional recess, which came to a head with a “town hall” held in Denver attended by over 1,500 to express their concerns to a cardboard cutout:

[W]e’d like to come to the defense of Gardner.

Certainly, it would be easier to defend Colorado’s first-term Republican senator if he had braved the crowds this week, at least once. Other Republicans appeared at forums knowing full well they would take a lashing from constituents upset about what has been a slap-dash roll-out of huge policy changes by the White House and Congress.

But Gardner’s position of not attending or holding town halls last week during Congressional break is defensible…

The Post makes the argument that because the event at Byers Middle School last week was “organized by liberal opponents,” he was right to avoid it. And they give Gardner some credit for the non-public meetings he had last week with various interest groups and local leaders. You might not agree with that assessment, but it’s not an unreasonable point of view–maybe a little high-handed, but that’s to be expected from an editorial board.

Unfortunately, from here things go off the tracks in a hurry:

[F]rom a purely strategic perspective, with Republicans in power and poised to tackle real policy changes for the first time in six years, it’s good to have a voice at the table in Gardner… [Pols emphasis]

Giving Gardner space to be a diplomat also makes good sense to us. These are tricky waters for more-moderate Republicans to navigate. There’s something to be said for public restraint in the face of antagonism.

To be an effective Republican senator these days, Gardner, who didn’t vote for Trump and once called him a buffoon, needs to pick his battles.

Yes, it’s important for lawmakers to know the impact of their decisions, but hearing repeated heartbreaking stories about preexisting conditions is only so helpful, [Pols emphasis] when Republicans have already expressed multiple times they want to find a way to protect those who before were unable to get coverage except in state-run high-risk pools.

Folks, there’s two ways to look at this. If you believe the protests that have raged since President Donald Trump’s inauguration are the contrived product of “powerful forces behind the scenes,” as this editorial suggests, you’re probably going to, you know, get tired of all those “heartbreaking stories” about people whose lives have been saved by health care reform.

But if you believe these protests are legitimate, expressing real worries from real people, “hearing repeated heartbreaking stories” doesn’t fatigue you. It motivates you.

The Denver Post’s editorial board has repeatedly come out in favor of specific policies that Gardner is poised to dramatically and adversely affect with his votes. Gardner’s dogmatic vow to repeal the Affordable Care Act has not been balanced by answers to the pressing questions about what the replacement will look like. On the central issues of health care, immigration, abortion, and so many others that the Post editorial board has opined on, Gardner stands either in opposition to them or is not answering questions.

What kind of “voice at the table” do they honestly expect Gardner to be?

And that brings us to the same question we’ve asked in the past: how can the Post “come to the defense” of a man over and over who opposes everything they stand for? Do the Post’s own stated values on the issues matter less than backing the hometown player–to the point of disparaging Coloradans telling their “heartbreaking stories” at protests?

Because increasingly, that’s what it looks like. And it is very bad for their credibility.