On Point: 28 months and 5 yards

Published October 19, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Which of the following two events of recent days provoked more popular outrage?

A. The lenient one-game suspensions decreed for all but one of the University of Miami football players involved in an ugly on-field brawl.

B. The lenient 28-month sentence given a lawyer who helped Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a terrorist serving life in prison for conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks, communicate with a murderous group of jihadists in Egypt.

Correct. Severe punishment for those who threaten the image of America's fall sport is deemed far more important than it is for someone who merely threatens the tranquility of a nation.

Lynne Stewart, the sentenced lawyer, actually released a message from Abdel Rahman alerting his Egyptian brothers-in-arms that he no longer supported a cease-fire there. She was no innocent in over her head, either. "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism," she said. "I don't think that can come nonviolently."

Yet not only did the judge give her a wrist-slap sentence that largely escaped public rebuke, he praised her for having "represented the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular."

Little forgiveness of this sort welled up following the melee between Miami and Florida International. Columnists, talk show hosts and sports fans in general were so heated in their denunciations of Miami's mild reaction that university president Donna Shalala felt compelled to plead for a stop to the "feeding frenzy."

Americans can apparently accept a derisively light sentence for someone who aided a would-be mass murderer get his poisonous word out, so long as her résumé includes plenty of pro bono work. But forgive young men who temporarily lose their heads during the violent clash known as college football? Are you kidding?

Thank heaven we have our priorities straight.

They're ba-a-a-a-ack

Remember what the executive director of Colorado Common Cause said in 2002 after voters passed the amendment that transformed campaign finance in this state?

"We're stepping into a new era of politics," Pete Maysmith promised - one in which money would play a less prominent role.

"I think we need to ask ourselves what we get for that money that used to be spent," Maysmith said. "We got a lot of nastiness, viciousness and not a lot of information about the candidates. I think as we see less money in the system, candidates are going to need to be smarter and spend their money more wisely."

Now fast forward four years. Less nastiness? Less viciousness? Less money in the system?

True, there are fewer resources available to candidates. To political parties, too. Common Cause swept those stables clean, all right, a fact that will be deeply appreciated by those who see something sinister about politicians and political parties actually controlling the message their supporters are willing to fund.

And here's what we got instead: "Independent political committees collected a whopping $7.2 million during the third quarter of 2006 to help their candidates battle for the governorship and state legislature," the News' Burt Hubbard reported Wednesday. Two individuals alone contributed more than a third of that amount.

These committees' ads are just as nasty, just as vicious, but the candidates and even the political parties can wash their hands of them because they had nothing to do with their production.

Now Maysmith and Colorado Common Cause are back with another bright idea. This year they want voters to pass Amendment 41, the misnamed Ethics in Government measure. It's an atrocious proposal, for reasons News editorials have explained in great detail (see www.RockyMountainNews.com/ drmn/elections). But if you don't have time to look them up, just remember that 41's principal sponsors include the same geniuses who designed today's grotesque system of campaign finance.

Are we ready so soon to trust them again?

Hmmm . . . imagine that!

"MAJOR ENDORSEMENT COMING FOR BILL RITTER TOMORROW," an e-mail from Ritter's Democratic campaign for governor announced. But when the appointed hour arrived on Wednesday morning, nothing of the kind occurred.

Instead, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper revealed that he supported Ritter, which is "major" news only to those who think there is any chance that a Democrat running Denver would ever endorse a Republican who'd like to run the state.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes On Point several times a week. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News