Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: That I-70 rumble

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

How does Gov. Bill Ritter figure that Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany "didn't go to the people who are impacted" before crafting his proposal that allows tolling Interstate 70 to pay for highway upgrades?

"Not doing any due diligence was a mistake on McElhany's part," Ritter told KOA's Mike Rosen.

But the Colorado Springs Republican talks every day to people who drive I-70 and who will be affected by his proposal. So does Ritter and everyone else who lives or works in the metro area. The fewer than 10,000 people in Clear Creek County, where weekend congestion bottlenecks mainly occur, and the somewhat heftier population in Summit County, are hardly the only Coloradans with a stake in a transportation solution for this critical corridor.

McElhany's plan, Senate Bill 213, is scheduled for another committee vote today. Opponents will no doubt argue that lawmakers should wait for the I-70 Coalition to file its recommendations later this year. Because we all know that they will galvanize action, right? Sure, just as previous reports did.

Free speech? Hah!

In the United States of America - and we do need to stipulate the site lest you mistakenly conclude we're discussing a nation without the First Amendment - the head of a national reform group just apologized for labeling a political ad as a "Bob Schaffer for Senate video." That label is illegal, it seems, unless the group files a report within 48 hours with the Federal Election Commission.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" - except apparently when Congress darn well feels like it. But don't worry: The ad would have been perfectly OK in the government's eyes if its tag had been what its sponsor, U.S. Term Limits, originally intended, which was the saccharine "Thanks, Bob."

The ad was in fact objectionable in one respect, although it fortunately won't incite our national censors at the FEC. The problem: It uses children to push a political cause they're in no position to understand.

"Bob does the right thing," says one kid, who has no idea if that's true. "Thanks for standing up for us," says another. "Even when it was really, really hard," declares a third.

"Bob keeps his promises," proclaims a youngster in what might amount to the punch line.

Maybe it's just me, but I cringe when I see adults thrusting children before cameras to promote a political agenda. Whether the kids are paraded into a hearing room, handed placards at a rally or told to memorize lines for a political commercial, the result smacks of manipulation - maybe even exploitation.

Being young, cute and innocent is a gift that will vanish soon enough anyway. Let adults wage their own battles rather than recruit proxies from among those who cannot possibly fathom the stakes.

Pep talk, please

"The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit - but that's out of reach for them." - Michelle Obama this week

Thriving even "a little bit" is "out of reach for most Americans"? What, is she channeling John Steinbeck? And is that what people really want to hear this election year, that we're a nation of down-and-outers fighting over table scraps?

Even the Rev. Jeremiah Wright probably knows that's not necessarily true, what with the evidence of a 10,340-square-foot home that, according to the Chicago Tribune, is apparently being built by his church "for his retirement."

Won't someone recruit Wright to give her a pep talk?

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • April 11, 2008

    8:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    irisman writes:

    Free speech? Hah! Thanks for pointing out the Republicans' shameless exploitation of children for political gain, but that's just business as usual with them. Consider their exploitation of religious and social conservatives, promising Constitutional amendments and other things that they couldn't possibly deliver, but at the same time getting those folks to support huge tax breaks for billionaires. While both parties engage in negative campaigning, the Republicans take the cake for vicious attack ads.

  • April 11, 2008

    11:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DavidG writes:

    Lets look at Michelle's quote from the perspective of the people she is trying to reach. My bet is that there are actually a lot of people out there this year who elected to forgo a short vacation because the gas costs too much. Food prices have skyrocketed, and everybody has to eat. I don't have the statistics at hand but the country is sure not in the rosy-cheeked, "we're doing fine" condition that our president thinks we are. Maybe the rich and upper middle class would equate her remarks with Steinbeck's view of the depression, but surely not the majority of folks in the cities, rural areas, or blue collar states that have lost good jobs. What about all the seniors on fixed incomes? They need to eat and get out once in a while too? Add them all up and its easy to see where Michelle's coming from.

  • April 11, 2008

    11:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jjez writes:

    Did McElhany talk to the truckers who drive that corridor? Talk to anyone besides Romer? I highly doubt it because if he had, he wouldn't be trying to push his (or Chris') agenda through so quickly. He'd give someone else a chance to offer alternatives. He's going to make a huge mess of things in the hopes of making it better. Granted, some things are worth the pain of the creation (I-70 through Glenwood Canyon for instance), but tolling I-70 so he and Chris can get up there to ski without having anyone else in the way is not one of them!

  • April 11, 2008

    1:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    apparently vince hasn't taken the time to look at the real wage trends over the last 8 years

  • April 11, 2008

    8:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sweetpickle writes:

    This was his angry white conservative day.
    At one time the expectation in America was that everyone who worked hard could leave his children better off and better educated than he was. That expectation is fading rapidly.

  • April 13, 2008

    8:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    prk166 writes:

    A flat $5 fee for all going through the Eisenhower tunnel does nothing to address congestion. We need congestion pricing on a large stretch of I-70 to do that.

    Also, what guarantees do we have that the revenues from the tolling will be put back into I-70? Smells like politicians fishing for money to use on projects other than improving I-70 itself.

  • April 14, 2008

    6:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    I just hope Sen. McElhany and Gov. Ritter are also talking to the millions of us who live in this state that never drive I-70 into the mountains. This silent majority that so many would like to tax for no visible benefit, just so the select few won't have to pay more, or worse, give up their stupidity that causes them to drive during peak rush times, just sits here waiting for the plan that screws us to be put on the ballot so we can strike it down like all elitist self-serving whining should.