U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 15, 2008 08:00 PM UTC
40 Comments
The governor has making one misstep after another. This is a sign of desperation and not really a well thought out plan.
Senate Republicans continue to pressure Ritter on other ill conceived ventures:
GOP unveils plan to give voters a veto over guv’s property-tax hike
I think that part of being a good Governor is brokering deals like this, which requires working on both sides of the aisle. Now personally I don’t know if this plan will work, but he’s trying.
Face it GOPpundit, with your bias against Ritter, you continually just try to turn mountains into molehills.
I don’t know Chris, this looks more like a band-aid solution. It seems like he doesn’t want to have the confrontation under his watch. How is that going to solve anything?
was on Jay Marvin’s show this morning, he said that he wanted to avoid “open warfare” between the unions and business. Major labor problems wouldn’t look good between now and the convention, let alone the election.
But would the unions be willing to compromise, or would they demand payment for their support? I doubt Big Labor will go for this. The whole point of their support is to turn Colorado into a “Union Rule” state.
This seems more like scrambling like GOPpundit said. He’s trying to sweep the issue under the rug, and I don’t think either side is going to go along
No wonder were in Iraq. (snark)
He’s trying to negotiate a deal to avoid a conflict and that does not translate into scrambling or sweeping under the rug, which by the way are two different things. So which is it Haners?
You get a point for that one.
My thoughts on the matter are below, but the more I talk about it the more I am able to articulate my feelings on the matter.
It strikes me as scrambling and sweeping it under the rug because Ritter is between a rock and a hard place. He campaigned as a pro-business Democrat but he got support from big labor. Now both sides want him to pay up, and he can’t please one side without angering the other. So instead of dealing with the situation, he’s scrambling to sweep it under the rug.
No doubt about it. But that doesn’t translate into scrambling or sweeping under the rug to me. Scrambling to me implies that he was sitting around hoping it would solve itself and then realized he better get his ass in the game. IIRC, he has been trying to solve this since he first learned these groups were going to try to get these initiatives on the ballot. Unfortunately, nothing worked and he has made what seems to be a desperate proposal with this. Sweeping under the rug implies to me that he is trying to hide it. I think it’s pretty out there and he and Hick have been open about it. Now he may be trying to solve the problem cordially before it comes to blows during the cycle, but how is that sweeping under the rug.
Think of it this way, he could have just as easily sat back and let the groups do what they wanted. Because of the initiative process, he likely would not be blamed by either side if something passed that they didn’t like because he never got the chance to sign off on it like he would any other bill. I think trying to fix the problem, whether he’s doing it the right way or not, is more gutsy than sitting back. He purposefully put himself in the middle to try to solve this. How is that not leadership?
I see your point, and I think our main disagreement is simply usage of words. When I say scrambling, I think of “oh crap, that other thing didn’t work; let’s try this instead”, frantically looking for something that will let him get away with not addressing the issue. But I can see your point on the usage of this word.
However, I think it’s a strecth to look at Ritter’s proposal of not touching the issue until he’s out of office as anything other then sweeping the issue under the rug and pretending like it doesn’t exsist. He’s basically acknowledging the fact that there’s a problem, but he doesn’t want to deal with it during his watch. Which means he either thinks he can’t deal with it, or he doesn’t want to piss off both sides. You said:
, the point that I think you may be missing is that saying “let’s not talk about this until I’m out of office” isn’t solving anything. How can we say he’s being a leader when he’s not solving anything?
In fact, I said I really wasn’t sure. From what we know of the proposal now, it could be seen as a band-aid solution, but we don’t have the details. My point was more that he’s not scrambling and he is playing one of the roles of the Governor, which is to try to broker deals. The quality of this deal is up for debate.
As for the confrontation, you make it sound like he’s afraid or something. It seems like he is trying to take a middle of the road stance by trying to prevent any changes that would favor either side. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. If the next Governor leans one way or the other and wants to deal with the confrontation, then they certainly can, but he’s not the next Governor. If it makes you feel any better, his plan probably won’t work and he’ll have to deal with it anyway.
Sorry if I came across as trying to put words
My thing is this-Ritter campaigned on being a pro-business Democrat, but now he’s getting pulled in two directions. And instead of him telling labor “you knew what I was before you supported me”, he’s trying to avoid the issue by saying “let’s both not do anything until I’m gone”. While I agree that a Governor should deal, they should also lead. I don’t see this as leading.
What I do see is that labor will see Ritter as a DINO, and the business community will see him as waivering in his support. He will probably end up pissing off both sides and could damage Democrat’s chances with the business community in the future.
I think he needs to be the leader-governor and tell labor to back off and let him keep his campaign promises
Hoo boy, what governor are you talking about? I think it’s a great idea. I think only you and Bitter on Ritter dislike him so much. The other 6 million Coloradans are ready to re-elect him.
Gee it’s awfully nice of the Colorado GOP to look out for the will of the voters.
Does the term “newspeak” mean anything to Cory Gardner?
The facts of this are very simple, 175 school districts have voted to de-Bruce. Through a narrow interpretation of the school finance act those votes have never been given a voice. Now that those voters decisions will be enforced we have the Colorado GOP tripping all over themselves to thwart the will of the people. Nevermind the fact that this whole idea came from the GOP several years ago in the first place.
When you make Keith King look like a moderate you’ve really jumped the ideological shark.
He doesn’t even believe the crap that comes out of his mouth.
http://steampoweredopinions.bl…
I’ve expressed support in the past for the governor’s effort to keep the right-to-work measure and the litany of labor measures off of the ballot this fall. I think the right-to-work measure was done for no reason other than to a fight. I also think many of the labor measures just don’t make good sense from a policy perspective (mandated raises for instance). That said what exactly is the strategy here?
This is not a negotiation. This is the governor voluntarily tying his own hands and abandoning labor for the next 2, and likely, 6 years. All based on a promise from business that they will behave themselves this fall and withdraw the right-to-work measure.
What’s in this for labor? Why would they go along with a plan like this? How about a long term commitment from the business community to back off the right-to-work issue? How about a long term commitment from business to work on health care or any other number of serious policy issues facing the state?
Trading a 6 year commitment for a 1 year commitment is capitulation, not negotiation. I hope labor takes a long look at this proposed “deal” before they agree to it.
It’s a terrible approach to say no changes in labor law for 6 years. I think this is indicitive to Ritter’s search for the small solution which seems to be the hallmark of his administration.
I think Ritter will go down as a competent governor – but nothing major, either good or bad.
The only thing I would say to you and David is that we don’t yet know the details of the arguement. If he is “trading a 6 year commitment for a 1 year commitment” then I agree that’s a capitulation, but we don’t know the details of the proposal. For all we know, the groups may have to agree not to bring the measure forth for as long as he is in office. See this quote from the article:
Lets assume the best – no changes for 6 years agreed to by all parties and they stick to it. That doesn’t solve anything, it just postphones it.
There are issues we need to address. Most of this labor law is what, 65 years old? Things have changed a bit since then. What we need is a governor who will bring both labor and business into this century.
And this is an easy problem compared to fixing education, healthcare, and energy/climate change. If he can’t tackle this, then we’re looking at 6 years of caretaker govt.
I think I said in another post that I am not familiar with Colorado labor laws. So, I don’t really know what needs to be changed or brought into this century. Assuming that nothing much has changed since ’65, you’re probably right. And if you note, from the beginning I did say I wasn’t sure it was a good to give up his power like he has proposed.
However, you may disagree, but it is possible that Ritter actually disagrees that things should be changed and therefore doesn’t think he needs to address it in this term. It may seem like he is passing it to the next person to deal with, but he could just be passing it to whoever comes in and thinks it should be changed.
As to the other things you said need to be fixed, this could be spun to say that he wants to remedy this problem quickly so he really can focus his energy on education, healthcare and energy/climate change. He may not want this to be a thorn in his shoe throughout his time in office.
All in all, I agreed with what Steve said and I guess what I should have said in my last posts is that it wouldn’t be as bad as what Steve described if it was for his full term.
very bottom hip pocket of Union labor. He will do anything if they tell him to.
Including not letting the working man decide if he wants to pay union dues or be forced to find another job.
I didn’t realize there was another state with a governor named Ritter, because you’re certainly not describing Colorado or our governor.
He vetoed a very popular bill last year that he had promised to sign all because Chuck Berry and Joe Blake had their panties in a bind. Now he’s offering to veto any change to that same bill for as long as he is office (probably 6 more years) all in exchange for a 6 month time out from the business community.
He did allow the Unions to represent state workers, if they so choose. But those workers can’t strike and their salaries are paid out of the general fund, which effectively limits any large wage increases.
I’m not sure how you keep score but by any objective analysis the governor has been far from labor’s hip pocket.
Never mind the fact that “right to work” isn’t about choosing not to pay union dues, it’s about choosing to leech off of the work others and contribute nothing to a system that brings you and your family better pay and better benefits.
How can you say “right to work” is about choosing to “leech” off the work of others?
What a dumb thing to say. You know that is not true. Or at least you should know that. Or are you so far left that anything the unions say is just okey dokey with you?
Why is it ok for unions to FORCE non union workers to pay their dues or find another job? Why not let the union workers find another job if they want representation?
Making a stupid statement like non union workers are leeching off the work of others is just plain moronic.
If you aren’t a union member, but you are getting union pay and benefits…OK, ready…YOU’RE A FUCKING LEECH!
To avoid leech status, the law allows unions to charge a collective bargaining fee for the work that they do on the behalf of leechs and dues paying members.
Is that so hard to understand?
And if you don’t want to work in a union shop, work elsewhere! That’s YOUR right to work….your shoe leather.
than here in Colorado. Maybe that is why you write so slowly huh?
If a normal (non union) worker does not want to pay union extortion dues, why should he be FORCED to find another job? Why can’t the union slugs find another shop to screw up?
Oh wait, you think everyone should be union bait………and if any one worker balks at that, fuck em. Make “them” go find another job.
Good theory.
Typical Democrat
From the last poll take, a very small minority actually disapproved of Ritter doing his job, which I’m guessing includes you, Dean Singleton and Dick Wadhams… and that’s about it.
Since taking office, Ritter has been delivering on his renewable energy agenda, health care building blocks and funding education.
I would make the same guess, that about 15% still disapprove, including you, Dean Singleton and Dick Wadhams…
Just admit it, you’re out of touch pal.
15% disapprove of Ritter’s performance…
Oh yeah, that poll was from last year.
Nevermind!
from the last poll taken, and since then…
You guys don’t even try anymore. It’s pretty pathetic.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. He is DEEP in the pockets of the union fat cats. And is bound and determined to FORCE this state to become majority union. He is starting at the state employee level and will work his way down.
When the price of EVERYTHING we buy goes even higher, simply because unions have entered most every aspect of the work place, forcing the cost of doing business to go off the charts, people will finally see the dark side.
Remember unions? The entity that ruined the auto industry in America by demanding pay scales and benefit packages that destroyed their ability to sell their product?
Great concept.
Everything you wrote is hogwash, so I’m not going to take the time to address it.
to remember the oil embargo of the early 70’s so what would you know?
If the unions aren’t to blame, but the manufacturers are, why are the non union shops in this country doing so well?
dingdingding….They don’t have to pay the enormously generous benefits and tremndous wages that Detroit is saddled with.
And any blame for Detroit sticking with large vehicles for so long when small cars were better suited for rising energy costs falls heavily on the shoulders of the AMERICAN consumers that bought them.
Duh
Damn those consumers for buying all those big expensive houses that were built because they were qualified for a loan that anybody could see would destroy the market in the long wrong. All hail corporations, our all-knowing, perfect overlords. We’re sorry, overlords, for letting you down by asking that you pay us a living wage, yet still failing to pay for stuff that have enormous interest rates.
and have no voice to management.
Work wherever the fuck you want. It’s a reasonable job condition, just like when they say what your hours are, or your wages (higher at union shops), or that you can’t drink on the job.
I’ve left jobs because I didn’t like working there. The door opens for both entrance and exit.
Kolomitz was known to be working the RTW opposition well before the November Friday Night Special.
Fact: Governor Ritter enabled the “Right-to-Work” for state employees when he unionized them – aka brought in the unions for ‘partnership discussions’.
Shouldn’t all Coloradans enjoy the “Right-to-Work?
Just how does the RTW ballot item destroy or radicaly modify the Labor Peace Act?
Cons like you would be “smiling and happy” if we had the Mariana model here in Colorado wouldn’t you?
The Cons have already overplayed their hand, yet their arrogance blinds them.
Governor Ritter made an offer.
Was there a response? A counter offer? Are negotiations going on? It takes two sides to negotiate and bargain in good faith. It seems only one side is throwing out proposals and the other side is ignoring them.
There is business
There is labor
and there is the governor’s office
The governor has offered to do what he can (veto) in exchange for business and labor pulling their measures. Now as far as I can tell the only one benefiting from the governor’s offer is business. What is the governor offering labor? Or is the expectation that labor will just quietly go along?
Labor seems willing to negotiate
The Governor is willing to negotiate
Is anyone from the Right to Work campaign negotiating or even talking?
Like I said, their arrogance will drive them. Coors is leading the Work for Less campaign. Enough said.