DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 20, 2009 02:39 AM UTC
86 Comments
This is the first good, right thing 2nd Choice Ritter has done since he took office.
It is about time he does the RIGHT thing and not what the union thug bosses want him to do.
On the upside, fucking yourself means you don’t reproduce.
Downside: it’s not long enough. Too bad.
If not, it was totally worthless. Unions would have voted for him, right-wingers hate him no matter what.
You are correct on that one. It is the right wing thing to do. As noted below, does that mean that all you right-thinking right-wing folks out there will be voting for him? Hope so cuz he sure is acting like your kind of guy.
Whatever he is–clown, comic, The Silent One–Ridder is not a Democrat.
“Not inject the state into the negotiations…”?????? Maybe he’s auditioning for a slot as a stand-up comic at the state fair!
He injected the state into the negotiations all right–on the side of poor or Kroger and Safeway against some of the lowest paid workers we ever actually meet (I’m excluding the people who work in the fields to produce the food the members of Local 7 sell). [Full disclosure: I don’t work in a grocery store, am not a member of Local 7, and detest Democrats who act like Republicans even more than I detest Republicans. Hell hath a special spot, etc.]
Vetoed the bill at 4:55 p.m., eh? Just in time for dinner. The stomach churns.
ARE THERE NO DEMOCRATS IN THIS STATE?
I just knew your head would explode as the Guv made this attempt to claw back the support of one William Dean Singleton.
ps his veto seemed well reasoned, but left a gaping loophole … should this pass again next year and not impact negotiations, he’d sign it lickety split.
there are always some contract negotiations going on somewhere…
Given a choice to support working men and women who are out of work for reasons not of their own choosing, he fucked them instead.
Or do you mean that you’ve decided Josh Penry is the better candidate for working men and women?
But I won’t vote for Ritter.
Not only would I (make that: will I] NOT vote for Ridder, I would vote FOR whoever the Republicans put up…maybe even work for him/her. The bigger asshole the better–much better.
Reasoning: (1) We’ll still have a Democratic legislature, so nothing actually happens–just like now; and (2) In order to get a Democrat in the governor’s office, we need to get rid of Ridder (nice ring to it) in order to open the nominating process in ’14, when defeating the incumbent Governor [fill in the name of your least favorite Republican] will be that just easier.
Best bet (not my idea): Ridder runs the Peace Corps, stays out of West Africa…
Ditto his golden boy, Mr. Bankerette.
I’m having trouble finding a reason to disagree with your assessment of the Gov. This is a pathetic fucking veto only matched by his pathetic fucking explanation.
This stinks. What good does it do to have a Dem Governor if he’s going to veto billls passed by our Dem majority legislature? I supported an anti-choice candidate for THIS?
I mean, I’ll give him credit for keeping his abortion views personal and not attempting to foist them off on the rest of us but it took me ages to get on board with him because of that issue. So, I go out and campaign for the guy, raise money for him and convince folks he is the best choice and he continues to prove me wrong.
How in the world could Bill Ritter be re-elected witout Ralphie’s support?
He should announce he’s not running TODAY.
for your faith and confidence.
You’re absolutely right, of course. Ritter will have a hard time being re-elected without the support of unaffiliated voters like me who support Democrats when the Democrat is the best candidate; Republicans when the Republican is the best candidate.
So let me ask you, are you going to support Ritter, ask him to withdraw, or what?
Or are you just a concern-trolling partisan hack like it seems you are? Or maybe you are just trying to insult me? (Note: try away. The only people who can insult me are people who I respect. You have yet to qualify.)
2010 is shaping up to be a race with an incompetent governor who will not even sign a no brainer like this, further alienating what labor base he has, or some incompetent right wing ideologue.
Gentlemen, start holding your noses! And gentlewomen.
I’m sure they’ll be going door-to-door campaigning for Ritter now until November 2010. Oh wait, they won’t hesitate to turn on Ritter just the way Ritter has turned on labor.
I have been a strong proponent of leaving the business/labor balance of power where it is because I think it is pretty even-handed by Colorado standards. And I think the big issues in Management-Labor relationships are outside of the proposed laws.
But with that said, I disagree with the Governor above for two reasons. The first is that it is utter bullshit to say that his decision is to avoid affecting the present grocery discussions. Either decision has a significant impact on the negotiations – having no impact was not an option.
Second, this was not about empowering unions, this was about simple fairness. If I show up at work, ready to put in 8 hours, and the company has locked me out – I am unemployed. Through no fault of my own. And I am ready and willing to work.
To say that doesn’t qualify for unemployment when people who quit because they decided the job’s hours conflicts with their party schedule do qualify – that’s totally unfair.
for my disappointment with the Governor.
If I show up for work, and I don’t have a job through no fault of my own, I should be able to collect unemployment. It’s insurance after all, not welfare.
It’s not complicated.
couldn’t agree more or put it better
While speaking as if he really cares about the contract negotiations for workers whose wage hovers around $8/hr, he dares to bring up that back in the day that the current law was given us by Repubs in preparation for contract negotiations. At least those Republicans had the courage to do what made sense to them. Ritter, however, refuses to undue what he admits is a flawed legal constuct, because if he does so now, it might actually help these low wage workers who are the base of the Democratic party. Who the fuck is the political advisor for this guy? Does he really think the business community will support him over Penry or McInnis? He forgets who are the foot soldiers in the Democrats Army.
…uhmm, except that your veto is in effect enacting unfair and arbitrary legislation that materially impacts the relative bargaining position of parties who garner more favor by the state’s executive than his own constituents can muster.
It’s flat anti-labor.
from the Chan. 7 web story:
“As someone who voted for Bill Ritter in 2006, and who believed him when he talked about ‘policies that intersect with where people struggle’ in his inaugural address, I’m really disappointed that he hasn’t kept his promises to working people.” said Andrea Karr, a 20-year Safeway employee who works in Englewood and lives in Highlands Ranch, in a news release from the UFCW Local 7. “This was a veto from someone who doesn’t understand people like me, people like me work hard and play by the rules to support our families. The big corporations have the advantage in this fight. They have the money and the power, as the Governor’s veto today showed.”
Granted, not the politically powerful chunk of the business community – just the rest of us.
Not gonna be able to stump using his Labor Roots this time around. In fact if he does so, I expect him to be soundly booed.
It just occurred to me why Ritter keeps his own counsel, won’t tip his hand before all the arguments are over, withholds opinions on moot cases, and then makes his stunner decisions that please no one — he really wants to be a judge.
The next time he takes a trip out of town, would it be possible that Lt. Gov. O’Brien could appoint him to some vacancy in absentia?
harrydoby. an interesting comparison
Unbelievable.
This one seems pretty common sense, and I hate unions.
Why veto this and issue an EO to collectivize State workers?
Is he just lost?
I do not always assume pro-labor is a good idea, but this one seemed pretty sound so I was a bit shocked to see this announcement.
I considered it as being logical and fair.
Your last sentence nails it Pols, “To placate a business community that doesn’t support him anyway”. I think he needs a primary opponent and this country needs some balance between the “business community” and the rest of us.
I won’t vote for a Republican but I won’t lift a finger to support Ritter, either. Could somebody please convince Obama to appoint him to something harmless and get him the hell out of here?
Vice President?
Ambassador to Tuvalu or something.
Obama can’t really appoint him to an ambassadorship anywhere in Africa — that whole ongoing murder investigation and all…
there are a lot of unions at the top.
…very strange
when he told them he supported working families. See Rep. Casso’s comments in today’s Post.
Sponsor Rep. Ed Casso, D-Thornton, said he spent time on the 2006 campaign trail with Ritter, where the pair vowed to protect workers.
“When we got elected, I kept my end of the bargain, and I don’t think he did,” Casso said. “I have no qualms about (HB 1170), especially when I have the majority and I thought I had a Democratic governor.”
So in contributions, the firefighters gave him more money than anyone else?? We’ll see what he does with SB 180 that would grant CB to larger fire districts.
see http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
Can you give me some examples Dave?
I think he should be fair minded across the board, but stand for something. He seems like he is just trying to be gutless.
http://www.coloradopols.com/di… – and it is the same thing there in that he does nothing.
IF he were planning to go off into some more lucrative Wild Green Yonder, his veto of this bill might make sense as his down payment. BlueCat said it best: what’s the point of having a Democrat as governor if he’s going to veto a labor bill passed by the Democratic legislature? Answer: it makes no sense, in which case we need to look for an explanation that fts the facts.
Given the seeming unanimity of opinion among Democrats on this site, the veto certainly makes zero sense for someone contemplating a campaign as a Democrat in the next 18 months.
Whether he plans to run or not, it’s high time to focus on a feasible alternative and get started–drafting the candidate if need be, organizing in any case.
Where are the women in this state? If Kansas (!) can elect a female Democrat as governor, what’s wrong with the Even Farther Flung Territory? Awake, ye women of the West!
The governor’s veto of HB1170 isn’t a surprise, it’s been known for weeks that he would likely veto the bill. That doesn’t make it any less dissapointing though especially with the Ritter’s rationale for the veto. Apparently our governor would prefer not to deal with issues that are at controversy. That’s just too messy for him. Instead he’ll hang thousands of grocery workers out to dry in the midst of contract negotiations.
Appparently for Bill Ritter this is what he calls leadership.
I would get an “independent” 527 that during the General hammered Ritter for his anti-labor efforts. This one alone is a very simple straightforward example where most people will see Ritter’s move as continuing a very unfair policy. Not pro/anti labor, but just plain old unfair.
I think this could hurt him a lot in the general. Especially as he won’t have the unions to say that the attack is unfair.
If the unions know that they can just hang out forever on unemployment insurance, the unions save a lot of money in benefits to strikers, and this would be a bigger hammer for them in negotiations. Thank you Governor.
Striking workers may receive strike pay if they go to the lines. The strike pay is not much either.
Those locked out do not receive strike pay, they are not on strike. They are prevented from working by the company. They do not get paid.
Unemployment is finite in length. Unless there is an extension paid for by the government, such as has just occurred, it ends after X weeks.
No one gets unemployment for striking regardless of this bill. This bill merely provided unemployement for people locked out.
In other words, for people who want to work but their company has told them no. How that’s different from a company laying everyone off, which does provide unemployment, is beyond me.
But your concern has nothing to do with this bill. Also unemployment runs for N weeks (don’t know the number) – it’s not forever.
As they say in Texas, the only thing in the middle of the road is a big yellow stripe and dead Armadillo.
“Middle of the road” anything just means: Don’t want to commit myself to one side or the other in hopes that being a “moderate” will be mistaken for a political philosophy. If “middle of the road” anything is a political philosophy, it’s one you can shine yer shoes with. Git yer Shinola while it’s fresh. Git yer Shinola here!
There are lots of issues in labor law that are legitimately of concern to the business community. But, allowing locked out workers to receive unemployment benefits has not been one of the real hot button issues. Denying striking workers unemployment, while granting it to locked out workers is just the sort of distinction that state unemployment law, which its out of work through no fault of your own standard should be making.
It also is yet another case of leadership failure in the Governor’s office. If you are going to veto legislation, it is really your obligation to the public and your party to be out front actively opposing it in the legislative process, rather than passively hoping that it won’t pass so that you don’t have to take a stand on a controversial issue.
The Governor’s messages on labor issues seem hyper-oriented towards process and momentary circumstances rather than what is or isn’t good law in the long run. Where does he stand on labor-management issues? If he wants to run against labor generally, or against particular labor friendly laws, fine. But, seeking middle ground for the sake of seeking middle ground without regard for the merits comes across as vacuous and lobby driven.
It comes across as gutless, just plain gutless. And people having the option of joining a union should not be a legitimate concern. It should be a given fact in most cases. Unions on the other hand, should be responsible with this balance.
Since Gov. Ritter vetoed 1170 will he also veto 1180?
HB 1180 deals with collective bargaining for firefighters. The bill originally mandated bargaining for county sheriffs, city police and firefighters. In the Senate everyone was amended out except firefighters.
Vetoing two union bills would harm Ritter and allowing 1180 to move forward, even without his signature, is poor policy.
Put him in a bit of a pickle. IMO, should have signed 1170 and vetoed 1180.
Word on the street for several weeks was that he would veto both.
Why you wouldn’t just do them both at once is an interesting question imo. Then you get 1 article, 1 headline and its over. Now he gets to do it all over again.
They’re not big on political strategy over there.
Strange, strange, strange…
Thanks Steve.
And I agree with you he should have signed 1170 and vetoed SB 180
Of course it is 180 – there’s reasons I don’t post much and my proofreading skills, or lack thereof, is one of those reasons.
I constantly hit ‘post,’ and then proceed to be appalled.
You constantly hit “post,” and then I’m appalled.
I jest! I jest!
Hey, if I open a door for you, why not walk through it?
It’s going to be a few days before I can, too.
that had the Governor signed this it wouldn’t have affected contract negotiations since the law would have gone into effect in July and the UFCW’s contract expires on May 30th?
Why would he choose to lose his labor support a year and a half before the election based on a rationale that makes absolutely no sense?
They’ve just agreed to extend day-to-day for up to 30 days.
they agreed to extend talks until the 30th. That’s what I meant to say, but my point is still valid.
Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and Ritter’s veto or signature doesn’t change that since the law wouldn’t go into effect until July 1st.
I was just underlining the point.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/cpf…
Most of the money spent in the race for Governor, on both sides, will come from 527 committees because of the very low contribution limits. No doubt there has been much more than this already raised for outside committees.
In 2008 labor (teachers, seiu, everyone) provided about 30% of the total money going to pro D 527’s.
Does Ritter believe business is going to make up the difference?
As Cicero said ‘Endless money forms the sinews of war’
When Bennet raises big money it’s relevant.
McInnis’ ability to raise money is relevant.
Penry’s lack of big fundraising experience is relevant.
I could point to a myriad of posts on this blog in the last month where a candidates fundraising ability (or inability) has been cited as relevant to their election bid.
Back to Danny’s it’s not just the raw numbers, which are weak. But what those numbers say about the lack of enthusiasm for Ritter. With all of the questions around Bennet he raked in big dollars. When an incumbent governor can’t raise money it’s an issue.
That’s why their money is relevant. Bennet’s is more relevant because U.S. Senate candidates can raise money easier with higher limits.
We’re not defending Ritter, just pointing out that the bulk of the money raised and spent for Ritter and the eventual GOP nominee for governor isn’t going to come from what they raised themselves.
I get what you mean now. I disagree but I see your point.
But where does that 527 money come from? My guess would be that unions are a large part of it.
His explanation made sense.
How about donate money?
Volunteer?
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
“Ritter said fellow Democrats in the Legislature didn’t do Ritter any favors by forcing him to choose.”
That’ll really endear him to the second floor.
…to make a decision. It’s not like he’s supposed to make decisions as the leader of the state.
But why there’s such a communication breakdown between the two branches of government in our state is really confusing. Especially the partisan aspects of it.
Shouldn’t they be, you know, talking to each other about this kind of thing? What’s with all the passive agressive back-and-forth between the Guv’s office and the legislature? It’s the source of a lot of problems in Colorado politics.