As I wrote earlier, it's pretty clear that Michael Bennet was appointed to the U.S. Senate from Colorado solely because of his aristocratic credentials - ie. connections to money and Establishment power and Beltway insiders. It had almost nothing to do with his relevant experience, because if that was the basis for an appointment, every other major candidate had more of that. And, as the Denver Post notes, it had absolutely, positively nothing to do with his public positions on issues:

But while everyone from business leaders to political heavyweights to education reformers agree that Bennet is almost always the smartest guy in the room, his positions on nearly every key issue facing the country are completely unknown.

"Soon," Bennet said both during and after the official announcement.

Foreshadowing the hard-fought senate race expected in 2010, state GOP chair Dick Wadhams seized on Bennet's silence.

"His continued refusal today to state his positions on issues suggests someone who isn't clear where he stands," Wadhams said. And then he demanded to know Bennet's stance on an upcoming measure in the Senate that would eliminate the secret ballot in union votes.

One of two disconcerting realities is at work here: 1) Bennet's positions are known by the Establishment forces that got him the Senate job, and those positions aren't threatening to that Establishment (read: they are corporate conservative) or 2) Bennet himself doesn't yet have positions on the major issues.

I guess the latter would be better than the former in that it would hold out the possibility that Bennet will end up being a solid Democratic vote on issues like health care, ending the war, and the Employee Free Choice Act. But the fact that Colorado now has a senator whose never held elected office and therefore has no voting record*; has lived most of his life in D.C. and not in state; has served as a key adviser to a right-wing billionaire; and hasn't stated any public positions on key issues before the Senate highlights just how odd - and troubling - Ritter's appointment is.

*Note: I think having served in elected office - or at least having run for such office - should be a key qualification for a Senate appointment not as much for political/reelection reasons, but because in having done so, a candidate has built up something of a public record on many issues (whether that public record is actual votes or public statements) and therefore the citizens being represented have some idea of where that appointee actually stands.