Salzman: Senate Republicans hardly duped in 2004

Recording of session reveals a lively discussion

Published June 9, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

I still don't understand why Denver reporters aren't investigating whether former state Sen. John Andrews is lying, or at least seriously confused, when he says Republican Senators were duped in 2004 when they overwhelmingly approved a property tax-rate freeze.

So I've investigated further, to fill the journalistic gap.

Andrews and other Republicans have flip-flopped and are now opposing the tax-rate freeze, signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter, to fix the state's school finance mess. The measure eliminates planned reductions in most state property taxes.

You might recall that Andrews accused fellow Republican Norma Anderson of using legislative "sleight of hand" to trick him and other Senate Republicans into voting for the tax-rate freeze in 2004.

When I think of legislative "sleight of hand," I picture then-Sen. Anderson whispering behind Andrews' back or slipping an amendment into a bill during the Sturm und Drang of committee work.

I don't think of a loud, raucous debate, staged in front of the Colorado Senate, with Andrews himself most likely present.

I don't think of Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, speaking up for the freeze and joking that Anderson's searing performance was "vintage dragon lady," drawing hoots from the Senate chamber.

I don't think of then-Sen. Ron Teck, R-Grand Junction, saying he supports the freeze but was "a little concerned" he'd "get hit" standing between Republican debaters Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, and Anderson.

Yet, all this and more happened in 2004, as recorded on Senate tape. The roll call for the required session reveals that only two Senators were absent. See my blog at www.bigmedia.org for the text of the debate.

This stuff might constitute "sleight of hand" if you're watching The Daily Show or if you're an ostrich. In the real world, it's called robust debate.

It's possible Andrews, who was Senate president at the time, was in the bathroom. But his claim that Republicans were duped into supporting the tax-rate freeze in 2004 is hard to believe.

Reporters should pursue this story further, because the stakes are so high.

State Republican Chair Dick Wadhams, who was supposed to be the next Karl Rove, has pledged to make it an election issue, accusing Democrats of raising taxes.

Baby pictures. They weren't mangled bodies, but to me they had a similar impact. Part curiosity, part revulsion, part sadness.

The Denver Post (May 27) ran font-page baby photos of Coloradans who've died in Iraq, with the headline "Before they were soldiers."

It was an effective way to report on what our military families are dealing with.

Mike Rosen, on his KOA talk show, has argued that this type of war coverage can be motivated by anti-war bias.

"What seems like daily newspaper profiles of Colorado's American soldiers killed in Iraq is motivated not solely by respect and gratitude, which is appropriate, but, also, I suspect, by a desire on the part of some anti-war, anti-Bush journalists to undermine public support for the war by dwelling on the cost in military lives lost," Rosen e-mailed.

I asked Post Managing Editor Gary Clark how the profiles and baby photos of casualties, including 12 stories recounted by family members in the "Before they were soldiers" piece, were justified journalistically.

"Whether the stories - and photos - were anti-war or anti-Bush was never an issue for us," he e-mailed. "The story is the thing."

Clark wrote: "The 12 families interviewed pulled out family photos during the interviews and used them proudly and tenderly to tell poignant stories about their children, brothers or husbands. In that sense, it was easy to include the family photos, including those of these young people when they were babies or children. It just seemed a natural part of telling the story of their lives. It made sense. It was absolutely journalistically sound."

He's right. There's nothing anti-war about this. It could just as easily be pro-war.

It's about finding ways to help people understand what the Iraq war means, and letting them decide if it's worth it.

The protest economy. Both dailies reported that the Denver City Council has, for now, dropped its proclamation welcoming protesters at the Democratic National Convention.

There's an economic aspect that reporters are missing.

Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's ice cream fame - who's a client of mine - has noted that it's in the economic interest of cities like Denver to welcome protesters. Why? Because they spend money.

Some demonstrators might camp out and others will sleep on friends' floors. But many will stay at Colorado hotels and, certainly, dine out and shop while here. I mean, many are aging boomers.

So, if 10,000 protesters visit Denver, and each spends, say, an average of $200 on various stuff, you're looking at $2 million for the local economy. Imagine if 100,000 show up.

This information might have persuaded the council and the business community to unroll the welcome mat for the protesters big time.

Jason Salzman, president of Cause Communications and board chairman of Rocky Mountain Media Watch, is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. Reach him at salzmanj@RockyMountainNews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News