A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, June 4, on the recent indictment of John Edwards:
John Edwards is guilty. He’s guilty of adultery, of lying, of terrible judgment, of wanton reckless- ness, of cruelty to his late, cancer-stricken wife, of bringing harm to his children, of betraying all who ever believed in him.
But now the question is whether he was guilty, in the process, of breaking any election laws.
This is not an academic question. There’s nothing new about the intersection of sex and politics. It’s the oldest story we know. But what makes this different is that Edwards is now facing a six-count federal grand jury indictment, which certainly ups the stakes.
The government says that Edwards misused campaign funds during the 2008 presidential election in order to cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter and the child they conceived.
The government argues that Rachel “Bunny” Mellon gave $725,000 and Fred Baron gave $200,000 to Hunter and Edwards’ aide, Andrew Young, to assist in that cover-up. The most an individual can contribute to a campaign, it so happens, is $2,300.
The legal argument here, though, is not so much about the amount of money. It’s about how the money was used and why.
Edwards says he used the money to hide the affair from his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, and that it was a personal and not a political matter. He says, therefore, that these shouldn’t be considered secret campaign contributions, even though the money from Mellon might come, according to Young, in a box of chocolates.
Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. It says Edwards used the money to hide the affair from the rest of us in order to protect his campaign’s image. As the indictment says, Edwards’ campaign was based, in large part, on Edwards’ role as father and husband.
It’s an interesting distinction between the political and the personal, a distinction that has nothing to do with our judgment of Edwards’ behavior—even Edwards cops to that much—and everything to do with our arcane campaign laws.
It’s a fair guess that Edwards was trying to do both—keep the affair secret from his wife and from potential voters. We’re not sure how the law sees this—it’s basically untested territory—but much is clear, including the likelihood that Edwards’ primary run played a key role in Barack Obama’s eventual defeat of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
This is one case in which the cover-up would not be worse than the crime, but it could cost Edwards, at minimum, his law license. Most experts expected the case to be settled before an indictment. But Edwards, the famously successful trial lawyer, decided he had a case worth arguing.
If the case does go to trial, it will make for cable-ready political theater. Edwards is apparently willing to risk a tawdry re-reading of his political rise and fall and then his much steeper fall into the welcoming pages of tabloid newspapers.
But guilty or not guilty, our verdict is that, should there be a trial, the Edwards saga almost certainly hasn’t hit bottom yet.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, June 1, on the political rhetoric surrounding the federal budget:
Leaders of both parties are playing a dangerous game of political chicken with issues related to our national debt—dangerous for the re-election prospects of party members, but more importantly, for the economic future of this country.
Americans can only hope that behind the public rhetoric and smack talk, real conversations are occurring, perhaps in the ongoing budget-cutting talks being led by Vice President Joe Biden or in discussions between President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress.
The latest episode of a dare accepted came Tuesday evening, when House Speaker John Boehner brought to a vote a measure to increase the debt ceiling without tying it to budget cuts that Republicans want. Obama and other leading Democrats had said raising the debt ceiling shouldn’t be tied to budget cuts, and demanded they be separated. But when they were, the measure was overwhelmingly rejected, with nearly half the Democrats in the House joining Republicans to kill it.
Now Democratic leaders are accusing Boehner of calling the debt-ceiling vote as a political ploy, something to use in campaign attack ads against Democrats who voted for it. Polls show raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending is deeply unpopular with a majority of Americans.
Meanwhile, in the wake of a special election in New York that a Democrat won, Democrats have made it clear they will attack Republicans for voting for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan that would significantly change Medicare. Polls also show a majority of Americans opposed to that part of Ryan’s plan.
Even The New York Times, which vehemently opposes Ryan’s proposal, chastised Democrats over the weekend for failing to produce a budget plan of their own.
News reports indicate the budget-cutting group headed by Biden is near an agreement on cuts that would total $1 trillion over 10 years. That’s welcome, but only a quarter of what Obama’s own debt commission said is needed over the next decade.
The real head-butting will occur over needed cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare—which Democrats on the far left adamantly oppose—and raising revenue by eliminating tax breaks—which the GOP’s tea-party wing is fighting just as vehemently.
In two months, if nothing is done, the debt-ceiling issue will come to a head. That’s when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the United States will begin defaulting on its financial obligations if the ceiling isn’t lifted. Even President Ronald Reagan saw defaulting as a catastrophe for the country, and pleaded with Congress to raise the ceiling.
Now, Americans watch as political jalopies careen toward the Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline. Some of us cheer them on, more eager to see the other side destroyed in the coming wreck than in finding acceptable solutions. Unfortunately, necessary debate about our long-term debt may be put off until after the 2012 election.
We can only hope that someone hits the brakes and offers a more constructive means of crafting such critical public policy.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, June 6, on the name change for Mesa State College:
The institution currently known as Mesa State College will officially become Colorado Mesa University on Aug. 10, thanks to legislation that was signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper Monday.
That legislation represents more than just a name change for the local institution of higher learning. It is a recognition that Mesa State College is changing and growing.
The school offers more academic programs and degrees than it did just a few years ago, including more masters programs and, for now, one doctoral program. It also continues to offer important technical training and associate degrees through Western Colorado Community College. Its student population has been growing as rapidly as any public college or university in the state of late.
Because of all this, Colorado Mesa University is a much more descriptive and accurate indication of what the institution does, and what it can offer prospective students, than the old moniker. It is a university; no longer simply a state college.
The new name is also more geographically descriptive and will dispel confusion that exists for some potential out-of-state students that Mesa State is located in Arizona, or California, or Texas.
When the college was created in 1925, it was initially called Grand Junction Junior College. It later became Mesa Junior College, then Mesa College when it began offering bachelor’s degrees. Eventually, it would become Mesa State College.
Colorado Mesa University, in addition to being another change in the name of the institution, points to the continuing positive evolution of the school that has been an important educational facility for the Western Slope and a key economic driver for this community for the better part of nine decades.
We hope that evolution continues, along with solid growth in student population, academic programs and degrees offered.
Editorial:
———
The Coloradoan, June 5, on a new law that aims to make transportation spending more transparent:
Gov. John Hickenlooper has signed into law a bill by state Rep. B.J. Nikkel that will give Coloradans a better understanding of how the State Department of Transportation spends its money.
The new law, House Bill 1002, is a common-sense provision that passed both the House and Senate unanimously.
The law builds on another bill that Nikkel, R-Loveland, carried in 2009. That bill created a Transparency Online Project, which displays the revenue and expenditures of most state government departments and divisions.
But the Department of Transportation was an exception because its financial reporting system provided only aggregate, rather than detailed, data to the TOP system.
“Coloradans deserve to know how every dollar they pay in taxes is spent by the state,” Nikkel said. “With this bill being signed into law, the Colorado Department of Transportation joins the many other departments and divisions that are transparent about their spending.”
We concur and congratulate Nikkel for her lead on transparency issues.
Editorial:
