A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, May 2, on the death of Osama bin Laden:
President Barack Obama, in a historic late-night news conference, uttered the words Americans have waited nearly 10 years to hear: Osama bin Laden is dead.
The evil architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks finally met his end during a firefight with a small team from the U.S. military deep in Pakistan.
“His demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity,” Obama told the world around 9:40 p.m. MDT Sunday.
Without warning, it became a night to celebrate—after nearly a decade of news of roadside bombs and military funerals, of looking over our shoulders whenever a plane flew fast and low, or of taking off our shoes at the airport and hearing that the nation’s terror alert status remained locked at orange.
News of the terrorist leader’s death uncorked long-pent-up emotions across the country, and those emotions swept across the land in dramatic fashion. A growing and raucous crowd had gathered outside the gates of the White House as the clock moved toward midnight in Washington, D.C., chanting “USA! USA! USA!” and singing “God Bless America.” Fireworks broke the quiet night sky in neighborhoods across Denver.
In a long struggle that has seen far too many American lives lost, it seemed the country was ready for a night of victory. It became a night, as President George W. Bush wrote, that Americans sent a message that “no matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”
Calling the moment historic hardly does it justice.
We must not forget that bin Laden waged war on our country long before Sept. 11, 2001. He was the mastermind behind the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in Yemen.
And his death, while monumental, does not end this ongoing “war on terrorism.” As Presidents Obama and Bush have always pointed out, just killing bin Laden doesn’t end the threat that al-Qaeda and its extensive terrorist network poses to our country and other free countries across the globe.
“No doubt al-Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us,” Obama said Sunday night. “We must remain vigilant.”
Nevertheless, his death was much more than symbolic, and there was a great sense of justice in knowing that bin Laden met his fate at the hands of our military.
In the coming days, his whereabouts in Pakistan will raise questions about our already-strained relations with that country. How is it our supposed ally allowed enemy No. 1 to hide in the wide open, in a mansion? He wasn’t hidden away in a cave in a tribal area surrounded by his henchmen.
Obama said Sunday night that this should be a time in our history when we come together as a nation, as we did in those nervous days after 9/11.
It also must be a moment to remember the men and women who protect this great nation, mourn those we have lost and thank those who remain. We also must remember the innocents, and innocence, we lost that September day in 2001.
We hope and pray that this is a pivotal turning point in our nation’s long fight against terrorism.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, May 1, on the debt ceiling:
A recent Associated Press story by Tom Raum paints a frightening picture of what would happen if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling in mid-May and opts to start defaulting on its debt.
The words “financial panic” got our attention, as did the conclusion: “The impact would start slowly, but then build mightily until the damage would be so dire that few political leaders or economists even want to contemplate it.”
Some in Congress do contemplate it, though, and they are adamant that lawmakers should cut federal spending drastically rather than raise the debt ceiling.
Few still believe the U.S. can continue its current fiscal course of outrageous budget deficits and a national debt that’s threatening our collective economic futures. But this is not the time to use the debt ceiling as a hostage to force through an agenda.
And it’s not likely that lawmakers can find enough cuts in the budget—not without doing serious damage to a still-fragile economy—to avoid bumping up against the ceiling.
Although the national debt grew by leaps and bounds in the past few years—thanks in part to the financial meltdown in 2008 and the recession that followed—it’s really a problem that has been a couple of decades in the making.
It took years to get to this point, thanks to elected officials who have too often enacted conflicting policies and laws and who have tried to please everyone at the expense of the nation as a whole. But, as we’ve said before, they created the problem with the complicit consent of American citizens and voters.
So, after years of foundering, it’s going to take years to right the nation’s financial ship. It’s going to take shared sacrifice and adult conversations.
Holding the nation’s financial obligations and credibility hostage is the wrong way to go.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, April 28, on the state Senate passing legislation to create a health care exchange:
The fact that the Colorado Senate passed legislation in April to create a state-sponsored health care exchange is welcome news. But it’s disappointing that the vote to pass it was strictly along party lines, with only Democrats voting for it.
We certainly hope more Republicans get behind the bill in the House, where it is sponsored by the Republican House Majority Leader Amy Stephens of Colorado Springs.
One doesn’t have to be a supporter of the Affordable Health Care Act—often called Obamacare—to understand the benefit of a state-operated health care exchange. In fact, those who object vehemently to the Washington-driven aspects of the Health Care Act should be especially supportive of a Colorado-created health care exchange. If the state doesn’t establish its own exchange, the federal government will create one for us.
It’s true that the Health Care Act could eventually be declared unconstitutional and there would no longer be a threat of the federal government creating an exchange. But that’s far from a certainty. Legal scholars are split on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold or reject Obamacare.
Even if the law is overturned, Colorado won’t be harmed by having an exchange in place. An exchange is a means of expanding the insurance market in Colorado, by offering insurance companies and consumers a place to sell and shop for more diverse and affordable insurance policies.
Why would Republicans object to a measure that increases the market for insurance policies, may attract more insurance providers to the state and offers consumers additional insurance options?
Just because the exchanges were part of a massive health care bill that many voices opposed—including this newspaper—doesn’t mean they are inherently bad. Many business organizations support them because they are a market-driven solution for dealing with a portion of our unsustainable health care system.
When the measure goes before the Colorado House, we hope many Republican state representatives, including Laura Bradford and Ray Scott of Grand Junction, will support it.
Editorial:
———
Glenwood Springs Post Independent, April 29, on the congressional redistricting impasse in a state legislative committee:
The recent state legislative committee impasse on congressional redistricting in Colorado is discouraging in itself.
Even more troubling is that one of the primary questions at the center of the debate was the proposed parceling off of a large section of the 3rd Congressional District, including the most populated areas of Garfield County, and putting it in the 2nd District.
It seems a matter of common sense that the 3rd District, historically configured as a predominantly Western Slope district, should be largely preserved under redistricting, Garfield County included.
This issue now looks to be headed to the Colorado Supreme Court for resolution, if it can’t be worked out across the wide partisan divide of the full state Legislature.
It’s a sad testament to the lack of bipartisan cooperation that legislators cannot resolve such routine matters without resorting to partisan posturing and gamesmanship.
Redistricting is not about protecting the interests of one political party or the other. It’s about keeping communities of common interest and geographical regions together in a congressional district where these interests are likely to be best represented.
Population gains and losses, as determined every 10 years by the census, are the reason redistricting is necessary.
But lines shouldn’t be drawn at the cost of compromising the integrity of a whole county. And Garfield County, as a whole, tends to have more in common with counties to the west than with the mountain regions to the east, let alone the Front Range-centric 2nd District.
We believe the interests of Garfield County, in its entirety, are best represented as part of the 3rd District.
That’s not to say that certain interests and prevailing political leanings of some 3rd District communities aren’t more in line with the 2nd District. If common political or economic interests are truly the objective, we would offer that perhaps Pitkin County and Aspen might be a better match for the 2nd District as a way to meet population goals.
One of the beauties of the 3rd District as it’s currently configured is that it is arguably the most economically, socially and, yes, politically diverse of Colorado’s seven congressional districts.
Consider that over the past 60 years, the 3rd District has been as likely to elect a Democrat to its congressional seat as a Republican (four of each since 1951).
Most of Colorado’s other six congressional districts have historically been either strongly Republican or strongly Democrat.
If competitive politics and constructive debates on the issues are among the aims, that’s all the more reason to keep the 3rd District much the way it is.
Removing communities such as Glenwood Springs and Carbondale from a political mix that also includes traditionally conservative communities such as Craig, Grand Junction and Montrose would only ensure a less lively and one-sided debate of Western Slope issues.
Editorial:
