The dirty endorsement may clean up politics

The political world is all atwitter over the decision by the Denver Post, in most years a reliably Democratic newspaper, to endorse Republican Cory Gardner for the Senate seat currently held by Mark Udall.

Democrats are not happy. Former Sen. Gary Hart blasted the choice as "one of the worst endorsement decisions, not only by the Denver Post but by any serious newspaper, in my lifetime." An essay in the New Republic called the endorsement "baffling, because the Post doesn't agree with Gardner on almost any issue."

It's commonplace to say that newspaper endorsements make less difference than they used to, but they appear to matter more when they are unexpected — as this one was. And whether the Post's editorial board is leading public opinion or following it, its choices almost always win. In short, it's easy to see why Udall's supporters are up in arms.

Now, I wouldn't purport to suggest to Coloradans whom they should endorse or how they should cast their votes. But it is worth taking a moment to consider the ground for the newspaper's decision — whether one agrees with it or not. The Post editorial board has provided a useful corrective that, should it become the norm, might even improve the politics of our age.

The endorsement begins by admitting that the paper's sentiments on many issues are far closer to Udall's positions than to Gardner's. Then, after a bit of rather shaky boilerplate about the challenger's potential as a bipartisan leader, comes what seems to be the true reason for the choice.

"Rather than run on his record," the Post wrote, "Udall's campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman's call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince."

In short, the endorsement is not so much pro-Gardner as it is anti-Udall. The Post disapproves of the campaign Udall has run, and is trying to send a message...

The problem with today's parties is their willingness to make the same sacrifice for every cause. There is no dissent or counter-argument not worth mocking or dismissing, no one who disagrees worth taking seriously. And from the Willie Horton ad in 1988 to Wendy Davis' wheelchair ad in the current cycle, there are few political commercials not worth running, as long as the candidate's people believe they will be effective.

This trend, I would like to believe, is what the Denver Post is trying to stop...

There is a lesson here. The Udall campaign, stung by the rejection of its "war on women" meme, has come up with a new campaign strategy — but only after the Denver Post editorial. Perhaps Udall will still prevail. Perhaps he'll lose. But it would be nice if other candidates were on notice of the possibility that what they're doing to win might send their own partisans scurrying. Pause and wonder, that is, before things turn sour.