Denver Post’s endorsement of Michael Bennet turned against him by NRSC; Ken Buck’s feet in his mouth
In its endorsement of Obama Democrat Michael Bennet for re-election to the U.S. Senate where he represents his home town of Washington, DC, the Denver Post had some scathing comments about its candidate. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is using those comments in a new commercial (top). Comedians are hitting Ken Buck for his comments about homosexuality. The Left also is running a clip showing Buck has no respect for our long history of separating church and state. These clips could decide the election, which is a toss up:
The script is here:
Title: “Challenges” TV (:30)
Announcer: The challenges are too important. We need a Senator who’ll fight for us. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 10/22/10; Bureau Of The Public Debt, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 10/22/10; Stephen Ohlemacher, “Expiring Tax Cuts Hit Taxpayers At Every Level,” The Associated Press, 9/16/10)
Announcer: But Michael Bennet’s fighting for Obama. Editorial, “Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate,” The Denver Post, 10/15/10
Announcer: The Denver Post says Bennet’s pushing Obama’s over-reaching agenda… (Editorial, “Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate,” The Denver Post, 10/15/10)
Announcer: “helping to stick future generations with trillions in debt…” (Editorial, “Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate,” The Denver Post, 10/15/10)
Announcer: “…and lavishing billions in corporate bailouts and takeovers.” (Editorial, “Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate,” The Denver Post, 10/15/10)
Announcer: The Post summed up Bennet’s Senate career in just three words: “not enough spine.” (Editorial, “Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate,” The Denver Post, 10/15/10)
Announcer: We need a Senator for us, not them.
Post, Sentinel endorse Michael Bennet, pick the man they like over stopping spending, tax increases, The Business Word, 10.17.2010.
Bennet for the Senate. Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.
Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate. Denver Post.
That DP editorial really was something else, wasn’t it. I remember reading it when it first came out, and assumed the first two sentences criticizing Bennet would be used to pull a reversal complimenting him. Then it went on and on and on criticizing him. I had to read the title again to make sure they weren’t really endorsing Buck.
I was like, ok, so why are they endorsing the lock jawed, phony blue blood poseur?Posted by Laura Victoria on 10/25/2010 at 05:25 PM
Don, if you are really a constitutional originalist, as it seems from other topics, then you’ll agree that “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution and is of relatively recent judicial origin. We have two religion clauses - the “no establishment” clause and the “free exercise” clause.
There’s a big chasm between meticulous scrubbing of everything religious from even remote governmental venues, and the establishment of an official state religion, which was the concern of the founders. It did not mean “under God” had to be eliminated from the pledge or that nativity scenese could not be placed on private property.
Buck’s POV is in line with many well respected contitutional law scholars. It’s just most in the media are legally uneducated and actually think “separation of church and state” is in there. Now you might want to have state or federal laws that create this separation, but the constitutional underpinnings for it are almost non-existent.Posted by Laura Victoria on 10/27/2010 at 11:13 AM
I wanted to cite some authority for my prior post on this (from a NRO online piece - http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/51881/week-liberal-judicial-activism-mdash-week-february-5/ed-whelan):
“Feb. 10 1947—In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court misconstrues the Establishment Clause as erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state. As University of Chicago law professor Philip Hamburger demonstrates in his magisterial Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, 2002), there is no legitimate basis for reading the Establishment Clause to impose a regime of separation of church and state, much less Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” The idea of separation was “radically different” from the non-establishment guaranteed by the First Amendment and became popular only “in response to deeply felt fears of ecclesiastical and especially Catholic authority.” Moreover, explains Hamburger, the persisting separation myth has in fact undermined religious liberty.”
I don’t think this is an example of Buck putting his cowpied up boots in his mouth, and is yet another basicaly irrelevant social issues distraction by the hapless lockjawed and lowbrowed one.Posted by Laura Victoria on 10/27/2010 at 04:14 PM