Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Why Democratic voters should send Shafroth to Washington

Rocky Mountain News

Published July 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

If the polls are right, Democrats could have a field day in November - not only possibly capturing the White House but increasing their majorities in Congress, too. That's why the quality of newly elected Democrats will be so important - and why we're taking a look today at the race in Colorado's 2nd congressional district.

Make no mistake: The makeup of the 2nd District almost guarantees that one of the candidates in the Aug. 12 Democratic primary - Jared Polis, Joan Fitz-Gerald or Will Shafroth - will be heading to Washington next year to replace Mark Udall, who is attempting to jump to the Senate. Yet the two experienced office-holders, Polis and Fitz-Gerald, are flawed to the point that we think voters should acquaint themselves with the political newcomer, Shafroth. He's a professional conservationist who could add a needed perspective to the Washington debate.

The problem with Polis? Don't get us started on Amendment 41, which the wealthy former state school board member bankrolled without bothering to vet properly for problems. The result: The state's constitution will be saddled perhaps for decades with this flawed, heavy-handed document.

Then there is his campaign itself. We had to do a double take, for example, when we saw the recent Polis TV ad shot in a diner. There he was, wedged into a seat at a crowded counter, the inevitable burger and white coffee cup on display, holding forth on the evils of Big Oil - which apparently even include high food prices - to what appear to be several stunned customers.

Just in case the viewer failed to get the point, words flashed on the screen: "Jared Polis, Standing up to Big Oil."

It always gives us vertigo when a powerful man mimics Huey Long, so we checked Polis' Web site to see if he provided a more sophisticated analysis of Big Oil's sins. No such luck. The "TV ad fact sheet" there was just as simplistic.

As it happens, federal marshals could confiscate every penny of Big Oil's assets and not moderate prices at the pump, but never mind. When a populist is talking trash, nothing can slow him down.

We actually had hope for Polis' campaign given his obvious intelligence, attractive record as a entrepreneur and avid support for educational choice. But we should have foreseen trouble when he pretended last year that he had never backed the state's pilot school voucher program, though he clearly had. When he went to Iraq and started issuing feverish blog posts suggesting that contractors might "have me killed as an 'accident' if I published anything they didn't like," we knew he'd veered into a ditch.

And Fitz-Gerald? The former state Senate president is smart and tenacious, and differs only marginally on the issues from her opponents. Yet those differences are significant enough to cause concern.

Not only does Fitz-Gerald support a single-payer universal health care system (as does Polis, unfortunately) that will boost the frequency of rationed care, she is the least friendly to free trade among the candidates - even opposing NAFTA and in an apparently successful bid for union support.

Trade will be a huge challenge for labor-beholden Democrats if their majorities are large. And yet the importance of trade to economic prosperity is one of the few issues on which the vast majority of economists agree. Which brings us to Shafroth. He may be the underdog, but his grass-roots campaign could surprise people; its thoughtfulness has already attracted an impressive list of supporters.

No, we're not deluded. There are many issues on which we part company with the liberal Shafroth, beginning with his belief that conservation and renewables are sufficient to handle future growth in U.S. energy demand. If such views prevail and fossil fuels and nuclear power are pushed off the table, the price of energy and everything related to it could climb to the point that it slowly chokes off economic growth.

But Shafroth's rhetoric on green issues differs little from that of his opponents. What sets him apart is his lack of shrillness on issues generally, his proven ability to work with people across the political spectrum and his realism on critical issues such as health care and trade. Yes, he favors universal medical coverage, for example, but through both government and private insurers.

Shafroth's level-headed approach paid big dividends while he was executive director of Great Outdoors Colorado, where he leveraged lottery money to preserve thousands of acres of scenic land, and then as founder of the Colorado Conservation Trust.

The 2nd District primary has gotten nasty in recent days, with Polis, for example, trying to paint Fitz-Gerald as a pawn of wealthy PACs and sleazy corporations. We'd urge voters to ignore this white noise and get back to basics: Which candidate has the skills to best excel in Washington's ego-heavy arena. We think the answer is clear.

Comments

  • July 18, 2008

    6:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Field Day for Democrats = higher taxes, return of welfare, a retreat in the Middle East, and don't forget socialized medicine. Hip, hip, hooray.

  • July 18, 2008

    6:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Veritas writes:

    It is obvious that the Rocky would like Democrats to throw their support to the under dog thereby guaranteeing a Republican victory in the fall. Shafroth has been unclear on issues. He is not for single payer healthcare and is satisfied with No Child Left Behind. He sits on the sidelines and remains unmotivated to enter the debate. He is afraid to commit to any single issue and remains middle of the road and indecisive. Much of his fundraising is from outside the state. The Republicans have a great shot at CD2 with Shafroth on the ticket. Perhaps this is what the Rocky was hoping.

  • July 18, 2008

    8:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BrianSchwartz writes:

    "Yes, he favors universal medical coverage, for example, but through both government and private insurers."

    Neither "universal" coverage through government or mandatory insurance through private insurance is moral or practical. I discuss this in "Universal Health Care Kills":
    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/0...

    Forcing everyone to buy insurance is also immoral, as discussed here:
    http://www.wakalix.com/wp/2008/01/14/...

  • July 18, 2008

    9:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BonBon writes:

    Love these polls that say that the Dems will have a cakewalk in November. They already have the majority in both houses and a whopping 9% approval rating with the American people. Yes, please let's vote some more of these idiots into office...God help us all.

  • July 18, 2008

    10:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ItsJustme writes:

    That's right veritas and froward69, let's pretend that a Republican has a chance in the 2nd CD so that we don't send a moderate to Washington. Socialist Fitz-Gerald or looney Polis all the way! And Froward you're being disingenuous with that strawman about your paying the same tax rate as your employees under Obama's plan. You're of course referring to the payroll tax, not the income tax because if you're as wealthy as you imply, you're definitely paying more income tax than your employees. So you're wanting to raise your personal payroll tax? Do you wish Social Security then to become an income redistribution program or do you want to continue to draw a proportionate retirement income? If the latter, then there is no advantage for you "rich" people to pay more payroll tax since your Social Security benefit would go up. If the former, then why not be honest and just increase everyone's income tax?

  • July 18, 2008

    10:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    wait a minute. i thought that congress had record low approval ratings.

    why in the world would democrats be poised to GAIN seats if the approval rating is so low?

  • July 18, 2008

    11:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    Froward69 wrote, "taxes would become fair. as those wealthy such as myself would pay the same percentage in taxes as my employees ... rolling back bushes economically unsound tax cuts for the wealthy."

    Given your woeful ignorance of economics and how the marketplace works, I've got a hard time believing you're an employer, let alone paying less a percentage in taxes as your alleged employees.

    But that aside, I have never understood why anyone would push for their taxes to go up. If you want more of your money to go to the federal government, it's not that hard. You don't need to try to put more Democrats in office or lobby for a tax increase. All you need to do is write out a check for any amount of your money you want the government to have, be sure to make it payable to "United States Treasury", and mail it into the IRS. You can do that anytime you want, nobody will stop you, and the IRS will take it.

  • July 18, 2008

    11:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jackwoehr writes:

    > why in the world would democrats be poised to GAIN seats if the
    > approval rating is so low?

    Because of the mathematics of the Two-Party System. Which is why you should vote LIBERTARIAN, so that everything is not decided by this Good Cop - Bad Cop charade the Repubs and Dems have been playing since 1884 that forces people to vote for the one to avoid the other.

  • July 18, 2008

    4:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    jack, if ratings were so low because of distaste with democrats...wouldn't they LOSE seats...not gain them?

    i'm all for getting rid of the two party stranglehold...but we simply can't do it without meaningful campaign finance reform.

  • July 18, 2008

    7:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sweetpickle writes:

    That should be "The kiss of death". If an endorsment by RMN doesn't end his chances then nothing will.

  • July 19, 2008

    6:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Forward69 - your economics is really bad. The top 10% of income earners in the US pay 70% of the taxes. How much more do you think they should pay? Everything so you Dems can spread the money around? Communism doesn't work

  • July 19, 2008

    12:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jackwoehr writes:

    >jack, if ratings were so low because of distaste with democrats...wouldn't >they LOSE seats...not gain them?

    Not if the Republicans are more distasteful. Because the voter is conditioned to believe there are ONLY two choices. "I'll hold my nose and vote for X because I hate Y more."

    Alternative: VOTE LIBERTARIAN