A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Durango Herald, Dec. 5, on Herman Cain suspending his campaign:
Even without the scandals, Herman Cain probably was not going to be elected president. He was too much an outsider, his campaign was too long a shot and the Republican field was too crowded. Nonetheless, his experience has lessons both for candidates and the American public.
A man astute enough to be president should have expected his secrets to be revealed. After his 15 golden minutes of fame, Cain should not have been surprised when the attacks began. That is the nature of big-league politics in this country, and Cain cannot claim that his party is innocent of making it so.
From John Edwards to Justin Bieber, famous men have long been accused of sexual misconduct; it is an easy allegation to make, and it does not have to stick to a politician to do serious damage. There was enough truth to the rumors about Cain to make them stick. Regardless of whether the allegations were true, the sexual harassment settlements were fact, and if the women had not come forward, either an opponent or the press would have discovered them. Giving large amounts of money to a woman without discussing it with his wife was a decision bound to come back to haunt Cain. Among voters, any number followed by three zeroes is a large amount.
Still, those were not un-survivable mistakes, if Cain had handled them differently. Newt Gingrich, who has risen from the bottom of the large heap of GOP candidates despite early dysfunction in his campaign, has brazened out criticism of his marital and extramarital history. Bill Clinton, that draft-dodging, pot-smoking, skirt-chasing liberal two-term president, was impeached but not seriously hampered by his own sexual follies.
Cain’s problems added up, though. He managed to lose track of Libya. His 9-9-9 plan was attractive to many because of its simplicity and its promise of lower taxes, but he did not explain it convincingly. Instead, he responded to legitimate questions by pointing fingers at other GOP candidates, Democrats, the media, racists and conspirators. In some ways, he was right, but voters do not want to hear a candidate say, “It’s someone else’s fault that I’m not the candidate you want me to be.” They do not want a chief executive who paints himself as a victim. They want one who will take charge, right wrongs and fix Washington.
In the end, Herman Cain was not that person, and he is not the first candidate in recent months to bob to the surface and then sink back. The Republican presidential race has seemed more like speed-dating than interviewing for a job. Voters quickly form attachments based on little more than first impressions, precisely because those candidates have not yet revealed their flaws. Soon, though, disenchantment begins to set in and they move on to the next candidate. That method creates neither healthy long-term relationships nor good government.
Political consultants earn big bucks predicting what combination of factors will draw voters, because the conventional wisdom is so often wrong. Integrity and keen intellect ought to be firm prerequisites, but that has proved not to be the case. What voters say they want is not what they choose when they have options.
It is time for citizens to figure out what goes into to creating the government they need. Getting elected is one thing; being a good president is another. It is too bad the electorate cannot make one follow from the other, but that means looking at candidates with a critical eye far earlier in the process. This is not a flirtation; it is the future of the country.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Dec. 5, on risk for children not vaccinated:
Too many Colorado children could be exposed to previously eradicated diseases because more and more parents choose not to immunize their kids.
A recent report found that 7 percent of school-age children in Colorado attend school without recommended immunizations. The rate is second in the nation, with Alaska first at almost 9 percent.
In our state, parents may opt out of “mandatory” vaccinations for personal reasons, in addition to the traditional religious and medical reasons.
It has become en vogue to question immunization safety. One oft-cited study linked immunizations to autism. However, that study was found to be fraudulent. Other concerns also have been addressed in recent years.
Reasons often held up for not immunizing lean toward rare complications.
Yet, as more choose to bypass these health safety measures, things such as whooping cough are becoming more common. Last year, California identified more than 2,100 whooping-cough cases, and 10 infants died. Locally, whooping cough seems to make an appearance in local schools each year, too.
A Kaiser Permanente pediatrician told The Denver Post that unvaccinated children are 23 times more likely to get the whooping cough than those who are immunized.
Vaccinations for polio, whooping cough and measles changed the health of our nation, just as new vaccines do. There was a time when almost every child experienced chicken pox, but a vaccine now exists. And the relatively recent meningitis vaccine also should be appreciated.
It is true, not all vaccines are completely effective. Therefore, if an outbreak begins in unvaccinated children, all may be at risk of getting sick.
Still, state rules exist to make our communities, our schools safer places.
Skipping vaccines puts everyone at risk.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Coloradoan, Dec. 3, on transparency of the fracking process in the state:
A proposal intended to make the fracking process in Colorado more transparent fails to go deeper into the fissures of the issue.
Fracking is the process used by oil and natural gas developers who inject a mixture of water, sand and chemicals deep into underground rock formations to release oil and gas. Some are concerned about the process because the content of that chemical cocktail is unknown, thus, its potential impact on ground water and nearby residents is a mystery. Meantime, oil and gas developers stand by the process, saying it is safe and noting there have been few verified cases of contamination.
The topic is increasingly relevant here in Northern Colorado because development in the energy-rich Niobrara formation, where fracking likely will be used in many horizontal wells, is burgeoning.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission discusses a proposed rule that compels energy companies to disclose fracking chemicals on a public website. But the rule has a loophole: Companies could still classify some chemicals as trade secrets or proprietary information. Those classified chemicals would only be revealed to oil and gas regulators and medical doctors upon request.
That’s far too large a loophole.
The El Paso County Commissioners made a salient point recently when they sent a letter to the panel asking for public disclosure of the chemicals. They noted that even Coca-Cola has to divulge the contents of its product to the public, but the company is not required to release its “recipe,” if you will, or its patented process for making soda.
A similar conclusion could be reached here. Energy companies should disclose what they are injecting into the ground, but they need not reveal the makeup of those chemicals. The public interest should prevail because of the potential threat to drinking water and people. Given that the companies stand by the safety of their process, disclosure should not be a problem. And it should be fairly noted that some companies already do voluntarily share their fracking chemicals with the public.
But limiting the scope of that information to a request-only process leaves the door open to speculation and quite possibly manipulation. A broader public net offers much-needed transparency on an issue that is gaining more interest in Northern Colorado.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Dec. 6, on Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling regarding congressional redistricting map:
We can understand why Republicans are upset with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a lower court’s selection of the Democrats’ congressional redistricting map. A safe GOP seat now held by Rep. Mike Coffman will be safe no longer. In terms of voter registration, the 6th District is suddenly competitive.
The map keeps Republican Scott Tipton’s 3rd CD seat and Democrat Ed Perlmutter’s 7th CD spot close enough in terms of voter registration that both parties will have to work hard to retain them.
While the new map keeps two seats safe for Republicans, it’s fair to say that it doesn’t materially disadvantage any of the Democrats. It was designed, after all, by Democrats.
So Republicans are angry and Democrats are pleased. But how should non-partisan Coloradans feel about the new districts? Mostly satisfied, we would maintain.
We say that not because we anticipate—or look forward to—Democratic gains in Colorado’s delegation, but because competitive districts are preferable to politically lopsided ones. Not only do contested districts help keep politicians accountable, they also make them less likely to indulge in fringe causes that alienate mainstream voters.
Why more accountable? When challengers have a decent chance of winning, they usually attract the financial support needed to publicize incumbents’ records.
Meanwhile, incumbents find themselves needing to reach out for the support of moderate independents and thus are more likely to steer clear of political extremes.
Congress is polarized to such an extent these days that compromise often appears impossible. One of the reasons, we’re convinced, is that too many members don’t have to listen to, let alone cater to, the broad political middle.
Although Democrats may have drawn up the new redistricting map, they didn’t game the system so blatantly as to give themselves another sure seat. Sure, Coffman will have to work hard to be re-elected, but he’s got at least as good a shot at winning as any Democrat who will oppose him—and probably a better one, given the advantages of incumbency.
Coffman is a formidable fund-raiser who has never shied away from a political challenge, so we’ll spare our sympathy for someone who needs it.
Not that we like everything in the Democrats’ plan or necessarily agree with every justification made on its behalf. While it may make sense to give Aurora its own district, for example, putting Highlands Ranch into it is far from a natural fit. And putting most of Douglas County, which identifies with metro Denver, into the largely rural 4th Congressional District is hardly ideal, either.
But as Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt noted when he selected the map last month, “Redrawing any district lines necessarily means disappointing citizens and interest groups no matter how those lines are drawn.” On the whole, however, the pluses of the plan he chose outweigh the minuses.
Editorial:
