Republican Senate candidate Joe O’Dea has offered up so many different positions on important issues that it’s hard to believe that he even knows where he stands at any particular moment. But his latest argument for why Colorado voters should elect him to the U.S. Senate instead of incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet is one of the more absurd efforts we’ve seen in Colorado for a long time.
O’Dea posted a strange Tweet today that includes an embedded video clip from a recent interview with Kyle Clark of 9News — an interview that was plainly a disaster for O’Dea. As far as we can tell, the point of including this clip is so that the O’Dea campaign can make the argument that there’s no harm in electing him to the Senate because he won’t get anything accomplished anyway.
Here’s what Clark says in the clip:
Colorado’s Senate race, where Republican Joe O’Dea supports abortion rights until 20 weeks, highlights what’s at stake with control of the Senate. O’Dea’s campaign says he would not support [Sen. Lindsey] Graham’s 15-week abortion ban. O’Dea recently told NEXT he’ll vote in the Senate to codify [Roe v. Wade].
But he seemed confused when we pointed out that, if he wins and Republicans control the Senate, there will never be such a vote. [Pols emphasis]
[Again: This clip was Tweeted out FROM THE ACCOUNT @ODEAFORCOLORADO. O’Dea’s campaign WANTS you to see this.]
The embedded video then cuts to Clark asking O’Dea about the fact that a Republican-controlled Senate would never hold a vote to codify Roe v. Wade. O’Dea disputes this assertion from Clark without any evidence whatsoever.
No matter who controls the Senate, it will take 60 votes to get anything done, on anything.
Schumer doesn’t have 60 votes. Lindsey Graham doesn’t have 60 votes. All the action is in the middle.
— Joe O’Dea (@ODeaForColorado) September 27, 2022
The only thing we can compare this to is Republican Cory Gardner’s 2014 Senate campaign, in which Gardner convinced local media outlets that nothing bad could happen if he was elected because issues like abortion rights and same-sex marriage were “settled law” that would never be changed anyway. But even then, Gardner wasn’t quite as direct as O’Dea in making the argument that electing him would be largely pointless.
From a practical perspective, the problem with this narrative is that you don’t NEED 60 votes in the Senate when the Supreme Court is running roughshod over all of these things that were supposedly “settled law.” And since O’Dea has made it clear that he would have voted for all of the same Republican-backed SCOTUS nominees that brought us the end of Roe v. Wade, supporting O’Dea’s Senate bid is far from harmless.
From a strategic perspective, this is all very strange. Is O’Dea’s closing argument really going to be that Colorado voters should send him to the Senate just for the hell of it? This isn’t far off from producing a television ad that encourages Coloradans to flip a coin.
Vote for me, Joe O’Dea!
Or don’t. What do I care?