A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Tribune, Nov. 10, on gauging the Tea Party’s influence on Republican candidates:
Is the tea party over?
That seems to be the big question political analysts have been contemplating since the Nov. 2 election, when Republicans saw significant victories in some state and national seats, gaining a majority in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, but suffering losses in other seats, including our own U.S. Senate seat battle between Greeley’s Ken Buck and Democrat Michael Bennet. Bennet, the appointed incumbent, held onto his seat and helped the Democrats retain a majority in the U.S. Senate.
Bennet joined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose victory in Nevada over Sharron Angle was in question up until Election Day, and Democrat Chris Coons, who easily edged out tea party candidate Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Granted, these few Democrat strongholds were the minority on Nov. 2, but their victories were distinct and significant.
The real question everyone seems to be contemplating is has the tea party done more to hurt or help the Republicans? We think that remains to be seen.
Buck, who had been backed by the tea party and conservative Republicans, realized a surprise victory in the primary election against a more mainstream Republican, but couldn’t hold onto victory in the general election.
Would former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton have defeated Bennet in the general election?
What has been a somewhat unanticipated consequence of the tea party’s rise to power is the defeat of both Republican and Democrat moderates. As the dust settles from the general election, it appears both houses of Congress will lean more drastically to the left and to the right than before.
What we, and some political analysts fear, is that will simply perpetuate the polarization of politics in Washington, which has equated to stagnation in lawmaking. And that is simply unacceptable.
Extreme bipartisanship has not served us, the electorate, well. It has put both parties on the defense rather than the offense. We have seen blocking legislation, the “just say no” philosophy, as the goal rather than the compromise that can result in effective lawmaking. The result is nothing gets done.
The GOP in particular seems vulnerable to extreme shifts in its base. The conservative Christian movement definitely pushed the party to the right on social issues just a few years ago. Now, we have the tea party pushing Republicans to the right on fiscal and tax issues.
We would encourage the tea party to push for reasonable solutions rather than rhetoric that only points out problems. It’s easy to speak eloquently about the problems of a government that is too big and spends too much and taxes too much, for example, but what should be cut? What taxes should be eliminated? What government programs are too excessive? What employees are overpaid or should be laid off?
Many might see the Ugly 3—Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101—as the tea party solution to big government. But voters across Colorado, including many conservative Republicans, spoke loudly and clearly that these solutions were too excessive. To be effective, the tea party must turn its focus to reasonable solutions to the problem of big government, and turn down the volume on critical, negative rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Democrats who have lost much of their centrist support, are digging in for a fight to not only protect their president, but protect the legislation they have managed to eke through, such as health care reform.
In a year when the electorate seemed hell-bent on making their wishes known, we have to wonder if this election season will simply lead to immobility on those important issues that we believe need to be addressed: immigration, economic recovery and a comprehensive energy policy.
We can’t say for sure if the tea party is here to stay, or if it was merely a point around which America’s discontented voters could rally, if even for one election.
But the fact remains; the movement has changed the face of politics, at least for the next two years. And what that means for us will soon be seen.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Nov. 16, on top issues facing the lame-duck Congress:
The list is long, but the time is short.
The lame-duck Congress, which began work Monday, has a broad menu of business that could come up—but not nearly the time to take on all of the issues before the winter break.
Some might say that’s a good thing, but that makes light of the importance of some of these matters.
The top tier of business ought to be approving a continuing resolution so that government doesn’t run out of money, followed by taking on the Bush tax cuts. We think the tax cuts should be extended for at least a year to allow the weakened economy to better stabilize.
Following in importance is taking on the alternative minimum tax fix, a perpetual issue, and the Medicare reimbursement adjustment.
With Democrats indicating a willingness to refine the health care bill to address cost containment, we believe a long-term fix to the Medicare reimbursement problem is better addressed in that context.
Allowing physicians to take a 23 percent reduction in payments beginning Dec. 1 would cause chaos in the Medicare system. But the cost of the adjustment, about $1 billion a month, is unsustainable on a long-term basis, just as health care inflation is in general. It has to be part of the broader fixes to the health care bill.
This lame-duck session, in which Democrats hold majorities in the House and the Senate, may be the last time in the foreseeable future that a repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is possible.
The Pentagon is set to deliver a review to the administration on Dec. 1 that will include results of a survey, which is said to show that most of those in the military have no problem serving alongside openly gay members. A repeal of this policy is long overdue.
Other pieces of legislation on the horizon include a long-stalled food safety bill, which should be approved. Also a possibility is the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to children of illegal immigrants if they are enrolled in college.
The DREAM Act has previously had bipartisan support, and we hope it still does. This bill makes sense, allowing a future for children who want to make something of themselves by going to college.
Condemning these young people to a life of limbo while Congress dawdles on immigration reform would be a cruel decision.
Oh, and we shouldn’t forget about the circus over the ethics scandal involving Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., which should have been settled long ago. Rangel faces 13 counts of violating House rules, including accusations he failed to report a half-million dollars in assets on disclosure forms and improper fundraising.
Democratic leaders should have convinced Rangel to accept responsibility and a punishment beyond his surrendering the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. Now, the proceedings are taking precious time in the waning days of the 111th Congress.
With an energized Republican majority waiting in the wings to take the House, and a divided Democratic majority trying to chart the best way forward, prospects seem dim for getting all this work done. However, we hope they put their heads down and defy such predictions.
Editorial:
STATE:
Canon City Daily Record, Nov. 15, on federal appellate court’s ruling on state’s campaign finance laws:
A federal appellate court this week called into question Colorado’s campaign finance rules, calling the rules burdensome. That they are, but they are also something voters chose.
Some suggest that this ruling, along with other appellate rulings in favor of campaign finance laws elsewhere, set up the issue for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Those who battle campaign rules argue that such laws limit one’s First Amendment rights to free speech.
However, the call for reform grows louder as campaigns, individuals, ad hoc groups and others have found ways around rules, developed offensive communication tactics and stretched truth so thin it’s unrecognizable.
There is balance to be achieved.
The Colorado case this week involved a group of six residents in Parker who came together to battle an annexation issue. They raised and spent less than $1,000.
However, they did not form an issues committee and comply with state law that requires groups of two or more people who spend more than $200 to report their spending.
Residents often run afoul of the law, as did a group pushing a marijuana issue in Loveland in the most recent election. But typically they come into compliance and move forward.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to an Associated Press report, “ruled that the government cannot justify imposing campaign limits on such small groups, saying the burden outweighs the government’s interest in ensuring fair elections.”
That much may be true. But the court did not define what a small group is.
And thus a further ruling will, someday, be required.
Residents expect election speech to come with some responsibility. They deserve to know who is making outlandish accusations and who is a part of the group that exists only to fill mailboxes with hyperbolic and misleading fliers.
But citizens also expect to be able to participate in government without fear of fines and other reprisals.
We as a state, as a nation, should be able to accomplish both.
Editorial:
———
The (Durango) Herald, Nov. 15, on Tom Tancredo’s view of Republicans serving on Governor-elect John Hickenlooper’s transitional team:
Although Colorado voters chose Democrat John Hickenlooper to be governor, how the state fares in the next four years is equally dependent on the GOP. Let us hope Republicans in the Legislature follow the lead of former Gov. Bill Owens and not that of failed gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo.
Hickenlooper named more than 50 people to his transition team last week, including some notable names in recent Colorado history. That there are some prominent Republicans on the list is a credit to the incoming governor’s good judgment. It is also a testament to the maturity and honesty of those named.
Tancredo’s reaction, however, revealed another, uglier part of the political spectrum.
Anyone who truly cares about Colorado has an interest in seeing Hickenlooper succeed not in a political sense, perhaps, but in shepherding the state through some tough times. To put partisanship above that is to reveal a paucity of spirit and a selfishness harmful to Colorado.
Hickenlooper’s transition team includes well-known Democrats such as former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb. But also on the team are some familiar names from the GOP including former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer and Owens.
That is smart of Hickenlooper and civic-minded of the Republicans.
No one is suggesting that the Democrat Hickenlooper will govern in the same way Owens did or would.
But the soon-to-be governor can only benefit from advice from all perspectives especially from those with direct, relevant experience with the mechanics of government. The Republicans on the transition team may also help Hickenlooper rein in some of the more overzealous members of his own party.
For their part, the Republicans involved are simply demonstrating their commitment to Colorado. While some of his political opponents might like to see Hickenlooper fail as governor, more thoughtful people Owens among them recognize that wishing for such a thing is to hope the state suffers harm. Who would want that?
Apparently, Tom Tancredo. In a column that appeared Nov. 13 online at WorldNetDaily, the former congressman and American Constitution Party candidate for governor called Owens and other members of the GOP serving on Hickenlooper’s transition team “co-opted Republicans” guilty of “selling out” their party. He said their actions were “a form of preemptive compromise that ought to be called by its right name: surrender.”
For Tancredo to suggest Owens is anything other than a loyal Republican and a true conservative makes one wonder where he was for the eight years Owens was governor. More to the point, it puts his values in perspective: For Tancredo, partisan victory is more important than the welfare of the state.
Owens got it right. He told The Denver Post he was “proud” to help with the transition, saying: “I think that everybody has a responsibility to see that our elected officials are successful.”
That is not selling out or surrendering. It is not an endorsement of Hickenlooper, his positions or his policies-to-be.
It is citizenship. And in practicing it, Owens has reason to be proud.
Editorial:
