The Lamest Endorsement Argument Evah

From the Denver Post:

Congress is hardly functioning these days. It can't pass legislation that is controversial and it often can't even pass legislation on which there is broad agreement. Its reputation is abysmal, and even its members rarely dispute the popular indictment. 

It needs fresh leadership, energy and ideas, and [Republican] Cory Gardner can help provide them in the U.S. Senate. [snip]  

If Gardner wins, of course, it could mean the Senate has flipped to Republicans. However, that doesn't mean it will simply butt heads with President Obama as the Republican House has done. As The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib recently pointed out, "A look back shows that eras of evenly divided power — Congress fully controlled by one party, the presidency by the other — have turned out to be among the most productive" because both sides temper their policies.

Holy Smokes!  The endorsement gives new meaning to the term "Rocky Mountain high."  Clearly the editorial board has been partaking of some powerful bud if it thinks gridlock will be vanquished with the flipping of the Senate to the ultra-right Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party.  Gardner supported the government shutdown!  The Republicans will "temper their policies" if they gain the majority in the Senate to go along with their gerrymandered majority in the House?   How out of touch with reality can you be to come to that conclusion?  Can you say "impeachment?"  How about "repeal Obamacare?"

To get your rationale from the editorial pages of the Rupert "Arrrgh" Murdoch Wall Street Journal is a huge tell that you're not playing it straight.

This is the same Denver Post, at least in name, that endorsed Sen. Udall in 2008, as well as President Obama in 2008 and 2012.  There's something more to this endorsement than is evident from the sham argument they offer.  What interests are being advanced here?  Certainly not those of the people of Colorado.