Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

KOPEL: In its obsession with Polis, Times misses other news

Newspaper blinded by gay candidate's success

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Democratic candidate Jared Polis celebrates in Broomfield with his partner Marlon Reis after Polis' 2nd Congressional District primary victory Aug. 12 .

Photo by Preston Gannaway / The Rocky

Democratic candidate Jared Polis celebrates in Broomfield with his partner Marlon Reis after Polis' 2nd Congressional District primary victory Aug. 12 .

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

The New York Times report of the results of Colorado's congressional primaries (Aug. 13) revealed more about the cultural prism of Manhattan than about Colorado politics. The article's headline was "Gay Candidate Wins a Colorado Primary." Good news for cloistered Manhattanites who expected that Coloradans' reaction to a gay man would be to stone him to death. But in the battle for the 2nd Congressional District nomination, Jared Polis' sexual orientation was of little more significance than the fact that his hairline is receding.

There was a huge gap between Polis and Joan Fitz-Gerald on education reform. On taxes, health care and Iraq, Fitz-Gerald staked out positions to the left of Polis; she was the traditional Democrat, while Polis portrayed himself as pragmatist and problem-solver. Gay issues were off the table, as all three candidates, including Will Shafroth, were solidly in support of gay rights.

Significantly, the 2nd District will not be sending a reliable party regular to Washington, but instead picked the brilliant technophile with lots of ambition and little regard for hierarchy. Sort of like Gary Hart. But the Times told its readers none of these interesting facts about Polis. Just eight paragraphs about homosexuality.

With so many words devoted to Polis' sexual orientation, the article reported the victories of Doug Lamborn in the 5th District and Mike Coffman in the 6th District in just a single sentence each. No explanation why incumbent Lamborn faced two tough primary foes. Coffman was identified only as Colorado secretary of state. The Times should have also told readers that Coffman will probably be the first Republican congressman who has served in the Iraq war (as well as in the first Gulf War). Notably, he has criticized overreach of Bush foreign and military policies.

Last Saturday, Denver Post deputy editorial page editor Bob Ewegen, in a column headlined "McCain suggests raiding Colorado's water," announced that McCain had told The Pueblo Chieftain: "The water compact that Colorado and other upper-basin states have with California and Arizona should be renegotiated." The rest of the column lambasted McCain for wanting to give Colorado water to Arizona and California.

What Ewegen didn't report was that McCain told the Chieftain he opposed wresting water rights away from Colorado: "I'm not saying that anyone would be forced to do anything because I'm a federalist and believe in the rights of states . . . [T]here's already been discussion amongst the states, and I believe that more discussion amongst the governors is probably something that everybody wants us to do."

The Chieftain wrote: "McCain stressed that he has no intention of taking additional Colorado water, but emphasized that talks should occur."

The Chieftain quoted McCain further: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I would never advocate any course of action that would damage the state of Colorado's rights over the water, or any other water resources . . . I would never support any policy or any federal role that would impair the state of Colorado or others states' rights to their resources. But I know there have been discussions amongst the governors. I encourage those discussions as to how we best use a scarcer and scarcer resource in the West."

A Post editorial on Tuesday was fairer. It noted McCain's negotiation-only viewpoint, and then explained why many Coloradans, including Gov. Bill Ritter, believe there is nothing to negotiate.

The Post's Political Polygraph (Aug. 20) went overboard in claiming that a new ad "leans deceptive." The ad says that U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, who endorsed the bipartisan "Gang of 10" New Energy Reform Act of 2008, proposes "$48 billion in new taxes on American energy production."

The Post counters that the plan raises revenues from oil and gas industry by "$30 billion over several years." The Post doesn't say how many "several" is. Indeed, nobody knows for sure since the bill hasn't been introduced yet. If "several years" turns out to be "five years," then the higher taxes on energy producers would amount to $48 billion over eight years.

Moreover, the press release from the Gang of 10 senators prices the bill at $84 billion, and says that besides the $30 billion to be extracted from energy producers over an unspecified period of time, the remaining $54 billion will be paid with "loophole closers and other revenues"; the bill does not specify who will pay the $54 billion on top of the $30 billion.

Referendum O on the November ballot would encourage statutory voter initiatives by giving proponents nine months to gather signatures. Under present state law, the time limit is six months for statutory initiatives and also for constitutional initiatives (Section 1-40-108). Referendum O would not change the six-month constitutional initiative time limit. A Post editorial (Aug. 6) mistakenly said that O would create a six-month limit for statutory initiatives, and only three months for constitutional initiatives.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • August 23, 2008

    6:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Kopel expects accurate and insightful reporting from the New York Times? What's in his coffee cup?

  • August 23, 2008

    10:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ItsJustme writes:

    "Denver Post deputy editorial page editor Bob Ewegen" lied in a column!?! I am shocked, shocked.

  • August 23, 2008

    12:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bolderdem08 writes:

    Thank you for giving credit to Polis' ISSUE POSITIONS. I know that it is important to address the issue of sexuality, and it is a big step for the GLBT community, but the fact is, Jared Polis relates more with voters in CD2 and just ran a better race than Joan and Will, money or no money. However, I must note that the Rocky was too lazy to do their own profile on Jared, and just used the same one as one of the Boulder papers...disappointing.

  • August 24, 2008

    6:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I seem to remember reading quite a while back that Polis was gay. However it went right over my head because it wasn't a big deal and the press in Colorado didn't describe him as "the gay candidate" when refering to him. It should be that way always. No one should be referred to or labeled "gay". If life was like that it would be so much easier for "the gay community". (hint, hint) gay community.

  • August 24, 2008

    12:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Mike in Hartsel, did you notice that the New York Times (ala Judith Miller) provided several of the crucial stories that supported the invasion of Iraq or do they not mention this on talk radio and therefore it's just not part of reality for you?

    Dave Kopel is right to point out some of the shortcomings in the Times coverage of Colorado's election. However, the content of their coverage may not have so much to do with Manhattan's culture and something more to do with Colorado's history. Given that this state passed Amendment 2, and that it is the home of Ted Haggard and Focus on the Family, probably hasn't gone unnoticed at the Times.

  • August 28, 2008

    10:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    tgo67 writes:

    Polis is gay?? I didn't know that. I guess what happens behind closed doors stays there