Set your Staffords on "stun"

You can just imagine what's left of the Republican Party faithful scratching their heads over "why in the world" would state Rep. Debbie Stafford ditch the GOP? And why now?
Stafford rocked her former party yesterday when she announced she was joining the Dems for her final year in office as state representative to House District 40 in Aurora.
She was elected as one of the last of a long line of moderate Republicans in the state. Before her, the likes of Gary McPherson, Paul Schauer, Martha Kreutz and a gaggle of Jeffco moderates had pretty much run the state government for eons. I can remember a few years just after Stafford was elected that she was the Republican Party darling, embodying what they considered to be "compassionate conservatism."
Then came the run for the right. Politics as usual in Colorado mirrored politics as usual in Washington. The likes and antics of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove not only became irresistible to some state GOP lawmakers, they became business as usual. The former far-right-wing fringe of the party took control.
What's a moderate to do? Jump.
As GOP party leaders pointed out yesterday, Stafford had nothing to lose by changing parties. She's term limited and she's made it clear her tenure in the House wasn't a stepping stone to something bigger.
They missed the point. She had nothing to gain by switching parties. There is no new balance of power in the House, where Democrats now hold 40 of the chamber's 65 seats. The move not only restricts Stafford’s political future at the Capitol, it pretty much ends it. As a term-limited Republican, she could at least ran for the Senate District 28 seat in two years. The seat is held by Democrat Suzanne Williams. Come next May, Stafford is pretty much out of a job.
So why tempt scorn from the leaders of a party known these days for not only making their own walk the plank, but yelling at them to hurry it up?
Could it be that Stafford was telling the truth when she said that her decision had everything to do with her own values clashing with those of her political leaders? Could it be that she thought it was unconscionable to vote in support of homebuilders at the clear expense of homeowners?
I think so. I think Stafford's bolt was a slap in the face of political party that used to enjoy the ranks of Elsie Lacy, Al Meiklejohn, John Love, and Tony Grampsas.
I don't see anyone like that leading the party these days. Stafford didn't either.

Craig tap dancing back into the limelight

While just about every American has an opinion as to whether the now famous Idaho Sen. Larry Craig likes men, women or both, no one can deny that Craig seems to prefer himself more than anyone in the world.
Craig, whose unremarkable career in Congress exploded a few weeks ago when he was busted during a gay-sex sting in the men’s room at the Minneapolis airport announced yesterday he was rescinding his previous decision to resign.
"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement yesterday.
He may certainly be as effective as he has been in the past.
But the decision makes it clear that Craig thinks very highly of himself and his work at the Senate. He believes no one could replace him, or should replace him.
Besides, he pointed out, who would defend his soured reputation if he left the Senate? Good point, but other than Craig, who cares?
So now, Craig is going to stay in Washington so he can effectively work, even though he’s been tossed off of all the committees he sat on.
He’ll continue to collect his $165,000 salary to spend his days trying to persuade fellow senators that they’re all safe from his “wide stance” in the men’s room.
He’s likely to find it pretty lonely at the Senate during the next year and a half, and even lonelier in Senate bathrooms. Then again, maybe not.

Fencing a dangerous sport for Chertoff

There’s one thing the famed Homeland Security Mexican Border Fence is keeping out these days: wacky weed.
And it looks like top leaders of the Bush administration are smoking plenty of it.
What else would explain Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s remarks yesterday about how good for the environment hundreds of miles of fences would be between the United States and Mexico.
He said illegal immigrants sneaking into the United States through Arizona and Texas are terrible litter bugs and the billion-dollar fence will save many a desert from their candy wrappers and piles of doody.
"Illegal migrants really degrade the environment. I've seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact in pristine areas," Chertoff said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment."
Really?
Since when has ANYONE in this administration shown so much concern for the environment that they would lose sleep over litter?
This is the administration that would rather turn the country into one giant Texas rather than slow the development of oil, gas and coal.
This is the administration that will stop at nothing in its quest to get at oil in the Alaskan wilderness.
This is the administration that gave up coyly looking the other way at giant polluters and outright fights environmentalists in court to shut them up.
This is the administration that has taken greenhouse gas cases to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to keep the government from regulating industries that may well end human life on Earth.
And now all of a sudden the Bush team is wringing its hands over stray pop cans?
Straighten out immigration laws by providing work visas and we can keep the garbage out of the desert and save taxpayers a few billions dollars by making it so people don’t have to sneak into the country.
Dave Perry is editor of the Aurora Sentinel. Reach him at 303-750-7555 or dlperry@aurorasentinel.com.