President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 04, 2009 10:13 PM UTC

My Sit Down With the Governor

  • 55 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

Governor Ritter was gracious enough to give me ½ hour of his time for an interview this morning. When I walked in he was writing an email on his PDA so he’s definitely technically literate. (But it wasn’t an iPhone so that adversly impacts his coolness level.)

Most politicians are loquacious to a fault. Some of my interviews have consisted of me going uh-huh every 5 minutes and otherwise just listening. Governor Ritter is at the other end – short to the point answers. Nothing extra, no tangents, just a short clear answer to the question. He clearly has never been in private practice where they bill by the hour.

Generally I appreciate short concise conversations. But in these interviews I try to get the individual to go on and on because what’s most interesting is what the veer off in to. I never got that in this case – I don’t know if that speaks to who Bill Ritter is or just how he handles press interviews. He definitely isn’t giving up any information that isn’t requested. With that said, he was very friendly and open in his answers.  

So I started off asking him what his priorities are this year and he told me he has three:

  1. Jobs
  2. Jobs
  3. Jobs

He said that in our present situation everything revolves around improving the job picture. What’s interesting is he didn’t talk about the other pieces of this, not about a robust economy, not about companies surviving – it was just boosting employment. I think he understands that there is a lot that goes in to increasing employment but he clearly is focused on one key result – more jobs. And short term that probably does make the most sense for a governor.

He sees that state efforts on this front as threefold, the transportation bill, the set of economic development bills moving through the legislature, and making the most effective use of the federal money that’s coming. He went on at some length about how it is the duty of the state to make sure that the federal money is spent on the projects that make the most sense and is spent responsibly. He spoke to the fact that this is taxpayer money and therefore the state must treat it responsibly.

With all the recent stories of political corruption we have heard throughout the country, and even here in Colorado, it’s nice to listen to someone who sees his primary job with all of the federal money we are about to get to be that we handle it effectively & responsibly. It sounds almost trite when he says it, yet it is all too rare that our political leaders take this approach.

I asked him if he could have any bill he wanted passed what would it be. And he instantly answered the transportation bill. He sees it as a needed step today to resolve major problems that we already have. And it is a needed part of a long term solution, but not sufficient to cover everything. He sees that long term gas taxes won’t cut it because of the move to better mileage and alternative fuels. He talked a bit about cars paying taxes based on weight and mileage driven over a year as the most likely future.

He talked a little about health care, virtually not at all about alternative energy, and some about making sure we keep the industries of the future we here in business and investment coming in. He said high-tech is in the best shape (so apparently I don’t have to worry). This wasn’t a discussion about growing any of this, just holding our position through this crisis. And I think that is a good approach to take on this.

He had nothing else that the state could do to address the economic mess we are in. I would have liked to hear something, but I’m not sure there is anything significant we can do (aside from decriminalizing drugs) that would have a major effect. The smart thing would be to approve a major bond for infrastructure improvement across the state – but TABOR is written so that is impossible for 2 years (thanks Doug).

So what do we get with Bill Ritter? He definitely comes across as a straightforward no-nonsense guy who is focused on the nuts & bolts of running the state. No soaring rhetoric, no grand proposals to address major problems in new ways. What we do get is someone running the state well and doing the best he can with the tools available to him. And a single-minded focus on jobs. After the disasters wreaked upon our state by the economic idiocy of Bill Owens/Doug Bruce/etc. quiet competence looks damn good to me.

First published at Liberal and Loving It

Tweet
Share

Comments

55 thoughts on “My Sit Down With the Governor”

  1. Then I don’t see how you could say he’s doing a good job. You give him a nice pat on the back in this diary, but what has he got to show for it in two years of being Governor?

    I really like Governor Ritter as a person. I want him to succeed as Governor, and I think it’s in everyone’s best interest for that to happen. The only problem is that he hasn’t done much. He’s not helping himself by talking big on job creation and then not delivering.

    Like you said:

    He had nothing else that the state could do to address the economic mess we are in.

    That about says it all.

        2. Someone tell this dildo we all know what the problem is.  There is not one idea or suggestion on how to get us out of this mess in that entire 8 minutes.  After his nap maybe he can come up with a few.

      2. Ritter has done enough.  And thank you Co Pols for ignoring Mike King’s comment regarding hiding the fiscal impact of Ritter’s job killing rules.  

        3. The new rules haven’t even gone into effect and many of the rules, especially the original one that would have stopped drilling for four months each year, have been removed at the request of industry. If your going to make these overarching accusations, please post specific facts to support your assertion that Colorado has lost jobs because of the proposed rules. How many oil and gas jobs have the oil and gas companies terminated because of the proposed rules? Since you seem to know that has happened you certainly can give us the specific facts.

          1. like most posters of similar ilk, Dino is not interested in posting facts.  As you know and I know he has none.  The decline in drill rigs is nearly an identical correlation with the decline in the price of a tcf.  As an Occidental spokesman said last week–it is simply not in the industry’s interest to drill when the price of a tcf is below $5.  This puts the lie in the “Drill here, drill now, pay less” meme.  Companies drilled here and now, causing a glut of the commodity and causing prices to crash.  Thus they quickly lay off workers–having no loyalty to workers, local economies, or the state in which they operate.  

            They are now not drilling here or drilling now precisely because they want us to pay more.  And we will because they control supply, which they manipulate at will.  

  2. Like absolutely every other person I have interviewed – Ritter wanted to know “about those odds on the big line.” I think we could get 100% agreement from ever person running for office that the odds are wrong 🙂

    2. maybe 4-1 would be more accurate. If Suthers odds as an incumbent running for re-election for statewide office is at 4-1 then the Guv should get 4-1 as well. Pols have made a few adjustments that make sense over the last several weeks. B.B at 3-1 in a statewide race and Coffman in a safe district at 2-1 is pretty accurate. Still think Jared should be 2-1, but, Pols is getting closer to where the odds should be.

      I’m glad Gov. Ritter has jobs on his mind (although I sure hope he will support Soper’s prevailing wage bill).

      Gov. Ritter- Please support Colorado and make sure RTD follows through with what the voters approved in 2004. The complete build out of the passsenger rail which includes the entire North Line and Northwest Lines. A large portion of the stimulus should be spent assisting to make sure this gets built on schedule (2017).

        1. David picked the winning candidate in that race too (I was a Will Shafroth supporter, but, believe that Jared is doing a great job)

          Heck, I’m surprised that David didn’t claim that those 4% pt win was due to his blogs during the campaign.

  3. If its that important how did he let it get to the Senate floor without the votes it needed to pass? If this is so critical how does he explain what happened today?

    Thanks for posting this David.  

      1. As David pointed out above, in his interview Gov. Ritter said his number one priority is “jobs, jobs, and jobs” and the FASTER bill is right on target for his strategy.

        Last year, before the economic slump spread across the United States, the American Highway Users Alliance released a study concenring not only the need for infrastructure upgrades and new construction but the study also outlined the economic impact of transportation infrastructure investment. The study found that every dollar spent on transportation infrastructure “yields $5.40 in economic benefits in reduced delays, improved safety and lower vehicle operating costs.” If the FASTER bill passes and we invest $225 million each year that translates to a total economic benefit of $1.215 billion annually. That is why this bill is important and why Gov. Ritter has supported it from its inception. Infrastructure spending truly stimulates the economy and produces jobs far beyond the actual construction jobs.

        We are in a difficult economic era which requires real leadership that focuses on the things that will do the most to pull us out of the recession. Like a laser beam, Gov. Ritter has focused on one of the most effective tools he has to help Colorado and the nation in this dire economic time. He should be commended for his leadership and his courage in amking the difficult decision to support this bill.

         

        1. The study found that every dollar spent on transportation infrastructure “yields $5.40 in economic benefits in reduced delays, improved safety and lower vehicle operating costs.” If the FASTER bill passes and we invest $225 million each year that translates to a total economic benefit of $1.215 billion annually.

          then the whacking of the state budget’s transportation line by 30%, while increasing other new and tired programs, had the effect of pissing up a rope. That’s some leadership, huh?

          I am just stunned that the metro mayors caucus hasn’t tolled up 25/70/225/470. With the numbers you present they could create billions in LT economic value.

          1. Because of TABOR and Amendment 23 there is no place to cut and balance the budget except by cutting the transportation and higher education budgets. The present situation is another example of why TABOR has to go (Amendment 23 will terminate in one or two years).

            As far as tolling on the interstates, I don’t think the metro mayors have the legal authority to make interstates into toll roads. Several years ago, Aurora wanted CDOT to add a third lane on each side of I-225 between Parker Road and Colfax.  CDOT agreed that Aurora was correct that I-225 needed the additional lane but the department did not have the funds to build it. CDOT suggested that a toll road was the only alternative and Aurora turned the department down flat. The city didn’t want anything to do with a toll road.

            I respectfully disagree with your remark that we lack leadership. The budget situation isn’t caused by either a lack of leadership or poor leadership. Its caused by what have turned out to be silly constitutional amendments that have perverted the state budgeting process. We need to return to what our founders intended – representative government and get rid of these silly constitutional amendments. All of the amendments that have perverted the state budget were on the books years before Gov. Ritter was elected in 2006. He has no choice but to live with them.  

            1. behind all the silly constitutional amendments over the past decades has been years of elected officials not wanting to take on the tough problems for fear of offending some voters.  

              Instead of doing their jobs with the authority vested in them by a delegated representation system of government, they were eager to hand the tough part of the job to the voters to avoid blame.

              Doing that showed lack of leadership as well as lack of courage. I believe we have better quality representation on the whole currently but here we are.  The damage is hard to undo.

              1. As you point out, TABOR certainly took some of the responsibility off the shoulders of members of the state House and Senate but, at the time, most of them opposed TABOR because they understood how it would make it impossible for them to take care of the state.

                About a decade later, Amendment 23, proposed by the CEA and other public education supporters, was specifically aimed at placing K-12 funding on auto-pilot because of a fear the legislature simply no longer considered public education a responsibility of the government. The supporters fears were not unfounded. Leading members of the Republican leadership, in particular John Andrews, were in favor of defunding public education K through university.

    2. Governor Ritter has met continuously with members of the House and Senate and been deeply involved with this bill. The first phase of leadership is the willingness to put yourself on the line for something. Governor Ritter has done that.

      The second phase of leadership is whether he achieves most of his goals in this bill. The assumption that because he is a Democrat governor and the General Assembly has Democrats in control of each house that that means both houses will march in lock step to anything he proposes is not realistic. Each senator and representative will gauge the FASTER bill based on how they believe their constituents view it, not how the Governor views it. After all, they were elected to the General Assembly to make their own judgments about state policy.

      Leadership cannot be defined by an absolute yardstick that the leader achieved each and everyone of his/her goals in a particular piece of legislation. Leadership is best measured by the end result. If Governor Ritter achieves most of what was in the original bill then he has succeeded as a leader on this issue.

  5. I was shocked to learn how angry some other high-profile elected Dems are at Ritter.  Maybe he’s savoring his last months as Gov. before he takes an appointment somewhere and throws the Gov’s race wide open.  

    I couldn’t think of a safer year to do it. Look at that list of R dingleberries in the Big Line…

    1. I’ve just spent 3 minutes re-running the interview through my head (Jambalaya will have fun with that statement) and I can’t think of anything that would lead me to believe that he’s looking or in caretaker mode.

      But he also was so matter of fact in answering everything that there was no way to pick up on how much he’s invested in the job. When I asked him why he is on the path he is on in life, it was that at each step he took the next step that was in front of him.

      So could be, but I wouldn’t bet on it. And someone who’s moving on doesn’t complain about his odds on the big line.

        2. and “nouning” and “verbing” are ways for words to gain a new meaning.  Doesn’t make them all good, but it’s a fact.  Remember when “access” was just a noun?  How about “impact”?  

          Btw, I agree with you on “sit-down,” not a good job of “nouning.”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

116 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!