Ambition “On Steroids”
Posted on June 21st, 2006 in Colorado Politics, General |
Once in awhile I read Rocky Mountain News editor Vince Carroll’s “On Point” column and just have to say “Ditto.” Today is such a day:
No one who runs for governor is unambitious, and everyone who runs is a risk-taker willing to throw the dice. But in Holtzman’s case, ambition and risk-taking seem to have been on steroids the past few months. They’ve propelled him into scorched-earth tactics that now conclude with a clever legal argument for why the high court should ignore the plain language of the law.
Ronald Reagan, Holtzman’s hero, believed “it was the role of the judge to interpret the law, not to pre-empt the rights of the people and their legislatures by making the law” (October 1987). Holtzman no doubt believed this, too - until ambition turned his head.
Ditto. Go ahead, and read it all.
3 Responses
Vince is a pretty straight shooter. He was wrong on Ref C, but he’s been right about a lot more. Just dismissing someone’s argument because you believe they have “an ax to grind” doesn’t make your case stronger.
The law may seem silly to you, but whether or not it is remains beside the point. Work to change the law through the legislature or initiative, if you will, but don’t go crying to a judge to change it when it doesn’t work to your advantage.
I feel bad for Marc, but you have to know the rules coming into the game. And if, as it appears, his campaign was sloppy and careless about the signature-gathering process, then take the conservative high road and take responsibility for it.
I don’t blame Marc for wanting desperately to get on the ballot after spending so much time and money et al. on the effort, but when push comes to shove it can be easier to talk the conservative principles than to live them.
And in the end, do you really believe the end justifies the means? Think carefully…
If you’re looking for an opportunity for one-upsmanship, you’ll have to pick a better analogy than that one.
When it comes to Bob Beauprez and Ref C, please fill in the blanks for me:
Talk conservative principles = ?
Live conservative principles = ?
Just because BB didn’t speak out as loudly as you or I would have liked regarding Ref C last year, it’s beside the point. When I introduced the hypocrisy of talking conservative principles without living them, I wasn’t referring to how boldly and aggressively you stand up on an issue or cause (that’s a different point). Examples of the hypocrisy I’m talking about would be:
1. A politician who votes and proclaims himself to be pro-life but urges his wife/girlfriend to get an abortion.
2. A hardline anti-illegal immigrant politician who knowingly hired illegal workers to clean his house or keep his yard.
3. A politician who rails against judicial activism until he decides to make a legal case that stretches the reasonable interpretation of the law to advance his own agenda.