CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
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*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 06, 2009 08:03 AM UTC
26 Comments
Loading ...
Unfortunately for the Governor, political tone-deafness can lead to electoral defeat.
But David, that was a great question for the governor. I expect to read more from Lynn Bartels on the topic this weekend.
Good to have you representing the blogosphere!
Sounds like you did a pretty good job David. Thanks for asking a pointed question. For the record, I don’t believe him on the UFCW question. His staff is infamous for never directly saying that the governor will veto.
I watched the clips of this presser on TV last night and you can tell the falling poll numbers and criticism is getting to him. He sounded defensive, he looked uncomfortable at times. It just didn’t look like the cool and relaxed guy from just a few short years ago.
A few more of these and I’ll have to stop calling you the official Colorado Pols “fluffer.” Good for you, David, keep it up.
Well done, David.
Ritter’s comment that his veto was the choice that didn’t change anything did not seem logical to me. (And to his credit, in the press conference he did admit that it did impact the negotiations.) But I was having trouble expressing why clearly.
Then it hit me, this legislation has been like SchrГ¶dinger’s Cat
When the legislation was introduced it was then in a sealed box and no one know if when the box was open if it would be passed, signed or vetoed. As such, for the last several months it has been ½ passed and ½ defeated. And over the last couple of months negotiations have progressed with the bill in this passed/defeated state.
As such, when Ritter made his decision, he was not moving back to the past (you can’t go home again), he was just removing the uncertainity and pushing the bill to one of two final states.
And for those of you that did not major in Physics, the above is going to make no sense.
The term “tone deafness” also makes sense to me. It’s as if Ritter and his staff do things and then are a little surprised with the reactions to his actions. There shouldn’t be any surprise unless the world was changing so quickly around him that he couldn’t possibly keep up politically (and that’s not happening). When I served in public office years ago, one of the first things I learned is that an elected official both leads and follows – and at best leads well and follows well. I have the impression that Ritter is doing neither very well.
Those on the left speak out against them because of disappointment with isolaed decisions that run counter to the interests of organized labor. Those on the right either silently agree with the vetoes or find reason to criticize the governor for them to further opportunistically weaken a Democratic governor who has offended his base. “Dispassionate observers” criticize him because the reason he gave doesn’t hold water. Pols criticizes him because Pols, also bound-up in a left-leaning world view, concludes that the vetoes were politically stupid for offending the Democratic base.
Rightly or wrongly, I think the governor’s reasoning is that if you go too far too quickly in a state more Libertarian than liberal, exercising the power of a Democratic Party dominance that is both precarious and under constant scrutiny for signs of overreaching from the majority of the electorate, you risk the party’s position.
I’m sure he has always realized that no matter what he did with HB 1170 it would affect the status quo, as it was at the moment he acted. But the governor was clearly referring to the status quo as it existed prior to passing the legislation. He was referring to the Democratic Majority changing the status quo in the midst of a negotiation.
Regardless of my personal feelings about the vetoes, and regardless of how convinced I am by the above argument, the bottom line for me is that I am very concerned about the Democratic Party cannibalizing itself over these differences. Anyone in this state who has worked with constituents of all stripes knows that there is plenty of justification for being concerned about alienating the electorate with a too aggressively left-leaning agenda. I don’t know if the governor’s calculations in this instance (or these instances) are correct or not, but I do know that the concerns which motivate them are not baseless.
We see over and over again, with both Parties, that the demands of the base repeatedly and consistently undermine the Parties with the mainstream. The Party that is in power loses power by this dynamic, almost like clockwork. When the Party out of power tames this dynamic sufficiently, it finds its way into power once again.
To my fellow Dems, I strongly suggest that we outsmart this dynamic, and mazimize our ability to give Colorado the government it deserves and needs. Criticize and cajole, but don’t undermine our Democratic Governor. There are ways of doing this, ways of trying to move the state in the direction you most desire without contributing to its eventual movement in the direction you least desire.
Vehement, rancorous, ideologically entrenched voices are always more of a gift to their opposition than they are to their own agenda. Let’s work intelligently toward intelligent ends.
Progress also requires that the base constantly push for a better world. Two years ago gay marriage was looking to be 10 – 15 years out. But many kept fighting the good fight and now it’s happening.
Even when I think the base is pushing too far or too fast, I still appreciate what they are doing.
to put it a bit oversimplisticly, I estimate the probability of success times the value of success to be greater than the probability of failure times the costs of failure. If, using all available information and applying the best available analysis, well-intended political actions are more likely to produce long-term harm than long-term welfare, then I oppose those actions as being politically counterproductive.
Uncertainty, of course, plays a big role, and allows for a great deal of influence of one’s own degree of risk aversion and one’s own preferences and prejudices. But, to the extent that one can make the assessment that I described above, it should be the decisive consideration.
Progress requires that the base constantly push for a better world in the most effective possible way, not that it constantly pushes for a better world in a manner more likely to produce a worse world. That’s a vital distinction.
I am not stating that in this instance, the calculation necessarily leads to a conclusion on one side or another, but rather that I wish that the calculation were better integrated into the discussion. That would make for a smarter and more effective progressive movement.
I’ve never argued for “going slowly” regarding the advancement of gay rights (nor even, ironically enough, in regards to HB 1170 and SB 180). Pointing to one instance of advocating an unpopular progressive position, and shifting the balance in the process, does not address the issue of avoiding Partisan cannibalization through overly rancorous in-fighting. Look again at how I introduced the argument about “not going faster than the polity will bear”: I said *”rightly or wrongly”* it was, I believe, the underlying concern on which the vetoes were based. Even that point was peripheral to my own central argument, that we should avoid intraparty cannibalization every time our moderate Democratic Governor disappoints the party faithful. My post was never in any way a defense of the argument that the vetoes were necessary to avoid going too far too fast: It merely recognized (implicitly) the validity of the general consideration. I do indeed believe in pursuing a progressive agenda in a strategic manner.
Frankly, though many people are too pure to share my belief in Party discipline, I’d much rather have Governor Ritter than a Governor Penry. And, since I think it is a very bad idea for the Dems to cut off their nose to spite their face, I am suggesting that we put the knife away and find more useful ways of disciplining our nose.
Would that that were why Democrats are crying foul over the governor’s vetoes. It’s not.
The problem, Steve, is the governor’s poor communication about his intentions and his clumsy veto messages that provoked labor to call Ritter a liar and betrayer. It’s the under-handed way Ritter went about disappointing the party faithful. No one expects Ritter to agree with everything Democrats propose, but it’s reasonable for Democrats to expect Ritter to act like a leader of the party.
Had Ritter argued, either publicly or even in back room conversations, against either bill and done his job as the top elected Democrat to steer legislators toward bills he could sign, he might have disappointed some faithful but he wouldn’t have dismayed them. You believe in “Party discipline” — fine, but that takes good faith efforts from all sides, and Ritter didn’t evince those efforts on these vetoes.
Again, this isn’t a purity test, it’s a competency exam.
Again, considering your arguments in the light most favorable to them, let’s assume that your characterization of Governor Ritter is absolutely accurate: I still believe that it does not serve our shared desired goal of moving toward a world ever-more defined by policies which best serve human welfare and social justice to publicly undermine him in response to the just outrage that logically follows.
I believe in Party discipline by all who are acting in good faith, even when it means swallowing hard and “supporting” (even if only with restrained expressions of disappointment) someone who you think should burn in hell (regardless of whether you think that of Ritter or not). Believe me, when it gets personal, I know how hard that is to do, and how strongly it runs against our emotional inclinations. Often, if not quite often enough, people who really do act in bad faith do not fare well as a result. But how they fare does not much tilt the scales against how well we are ordering our collective existence, and how well we will be capable of continuing to do so well in the future.
There are times when dumping one of our own best serves that larger and more important agenda. It’s not inconceivable that this is one of them (though I am very far from convinced). But that’s the case that needs to be made, and I have not yet heard anyone even try to make it, much less succeed in doing so in a compelling manner.
When Democrats start publicly undermining their Democratic governor, seriously weakening him vis-a-vis his Republican challenger in the next election, the first case they have to make is that the Party and/or the state will be better off as a result. This might involve calculations of risk and benefit, how likely it is that he will win but will be a better representative of the interests of the rest of the Party, or an argument that it would be better for the Party and/or the state if he were to lose to the Republican challenger. But, one way or another, the case has to be made, in order to justify the action which weakens him.
Since that case has never been made, publicly weakening Governor Ritter (by Democrats acting as Democrats) is not, in my opinion, justified.
Sorry, Steve, returning the state to the status quo that existed for decades by signing 1170 would NOT have been giving in to the outlandish demands of the base.
And I think you’re misreading Pols’ objections to the way Ritter handled these two vetoes. It was the clumsy poor communication leading up to the vetoes that marks Ritter as a weak leader, and the oafish way he explained the vetoes that most offends his friends.
Yours is exactly the argument Ritter’s advisors hope prevails, but it’s bogus. Ritter vetoed these bills — after allowing them to pass so he could sucker-punch his allies — to score centrist talking points.
If you want to swallow the “steady hand at the tiller” line, go ahead, but this is nothing more than the work of a third-rate Dick Morris wannabe, and that kind of cynical (and poorly executed) politics deserves to be undermined.
not as you have altered it, but as I originally made it. Here are the differences between the two:
1) Nothing in my argument was based on “the steady hand at the tiller” argument. Rather, it is an argument about the costs and benefits of party in-fighting, and that consideration of those costs and benefits should be prominent in all such internal debates.
2) I did not, in fact, ever defend Governor Ritter’s vetoes. If you read a bit more carefully, you will see some indications of my own position. Since that was not the topic I wanted to draw attention to, I did not state it explicitly. It is not the position you have assumed it to be. The point I am making is a more nuanced one.
3) Whatever Governor Ritter’s motivations, the analysis facing the rest of us (Dems) is pretty much the same: What actions best serve a long-term progressive agenda in Colorado? Again, I did not announce a suggested answer to that question, only proposed that it play a more central role in these discussions.
4) I never objected to Pols’ position, nor, in fact, to anyone else’s. As the subject heading indicated, my point was that the discussion has been distorted by the alignment of various perspectives and preferences in such a way as to create a perfect storm of disdain that, in the long run, doesn’t serve the progressive movement. I really don’t care at all whether Governor Ritter does or does not deserve that disdain. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of just retribution against politicians who have pissed me, or others, off. If you really want to understand my point (regardless of whether you agree with it or not), and why your response is to something that I have not said and am not saying, reread the sentence highlighted in bold type.
I knew I’d draw fire for this post, and I am perfectly respectful of positions that disagree with mine. But let’s be clear: I am not arguing that the vetoes were good policy, nor that Governor Ritter is an angel, nor that no one has cause to be angry, nor that there are not productive forms of intra-party push-back that can be employed in response to these vetoes. I am simply arguing that we should be a bit more disciplined, that those who are working to implement progressive policies should act always with a single goal in mind (i.e., how well do my actions serve the goal of implementing progressive policies?), and that arguments about why Governor Ritter’s actions were unacceptable do not address the point I am making.
Whether or not “that kind of cynical…politics deserves to be undermined” (emphasis mine), the real question is: Does undermining it in this particular circumstance, in this particular way, best serve the progressive agenda? The answer may well be yes, but that answer should not be blindly assumed on the basis of answers to other questions that do not directly address this most relevant one. My suggestion is that the relevant question be carefully asked, and carefully answered, in all circumstances.
Since you left out two key points in the sentence you quoted, you’re responding to a question different than the one I raised. Here’s what I said: “… but this is nothing more than the work of a third-rate Dick Morris wannabe, and that kind of cynical (and poorly executed) politics deserves to be undermined.” (emphasis mine)
It’s the job of Democrats to call out Ritter’s ham-handed triangulation because he’s harming legislators and the Democratic brand.
And yes, I believe calling Ritter to account for the way he’s handled these vetoes is entirely appropriate for progressives. Otherwise you’re rewarding his actions and making them acceptable. Will the foes of the “progressive agenda” gain some advantage if Democrats don’t shut up and swallow the medicine Ritter is handing out? Probably, but that’s politics, and let’s not forget that it’s Ritter who threw his supporters under the bus. (emphasis mine)
You’re writing as though the “progressive agenda” is something separate and apart from how it’s actually executed. It’s not. Ritter critics are pointing out that the state’s top elected Democrat is perfectly willing to toss that agenda in hopes of staying in power, and that he’s exhibited poor leadership skills and even poorer communication skills.
This isn’t a purity test, it’s a competency exam, and Ritter is failing.
that internal and disciplined responses to legitimate concerns is called for. I don’t believe that publicly undermining our Democratic Governor, who is without a doubt better for the progressive agenda than his likely Republican opponent, is the kind of response that best serves progressive purposes.
Once again, politics isn’t about making sure that politicians get their just deserts; it’s about doing the best we can to get the best policies we can, now and in the future. Given, for the sake of argument, your premise that Governor Ritter has failed the competency test, you still beg the real question: Which of the likely available alternatives do you prefer?
We’re talking past each other, RG: What I’m saying is, do an analysis with all variables included, and come to a conclusion on that basis. All I’ve seen so far, including in your last response, is a partial analysis based on selected variables. Until people habitually start with the question, “What best advances the progressive agenda?” and create their algorithms in service to the answer to that question, all other arguments are moot.
You claim that I’m writing as though the progressive agenda “is something separate and apart from how its actually executed.” No, I’m writing as though the progressive agenda does not reduce to isolated analyses of particular executions of it. Once again, politics is the art of the possible, and the selection of prefered imperfect alternatives. No matter how well-argued a case for a particular politician’s defects may be, that never can tell you more than a fraction of what is necessary to take into account, because the available alternatives are always relevant.
All of this is, as appellate courts would say, “considered in the light most favorable to” your argument: Even if everything you’ve argued is absolutely correct, the conclusion you insist automatically follows does not, in fact, automatically follow. There are steps missing, other considerations that need to be included. I would add now that considering your argument in the most favorable light is overly generous, not because it is without merit, but because the world is a subtle and complex place, and the degree of certainty you’ve expressed for your insights into Governor Ritter’s motivations I think outstrips the degree of certainty warranted by the available evidence.
All in all, my exhortation to my fellow Democrats is to calm down, take a deep breadth, and move forward as a disciplined and cohesive party dedicated to preserving our ability to do the best job we can of advancing the progressive agenda (the robust facilitation of sustainable and socially just human welfare) as much as we can. Every thing else, within the realm of politics, is peripheral, and should be placed in service to that one, focused goal.
The point is not to bloody Ritter’s nose or amplify strife that will somehow benefit Ritter’s Republican opponent (the perceived strife probably benefits Ritter by painting him as a centrist, anyway). It’s to change Ritter’s behavior, to let him know that his poorly executed triangulation doesn’t work, and in fact damages the progressive agenda.
the degree to which it is (or is not) a consequence needs to be considered. Your assumption is that the in-fighting helps Ritter by portraying him as a centrist: I hope you’re right.
Your responses have moved toward the kind of analysis that I have been suggesting should be front and center. But it shouldn’t be done post hoc: It should be the guiding principle. If this collective outrage serves the progressive agenda, that’s great, but it will have been despite the lack of consideration of what reaction, in fact, really does best serve the progressive agenda in this situation. I’m simply saying that that should be the first consideration, and reactions should be disciplined in service to that consideration to whatever extent possible.
You’re really imagining a party other than the Democrats. And I wouldn’t want to belong to a party that had the kind of reaction discipline you’re describing.
social institutional arrangements improved upon those that currently exist. That’s what I think it means to be a progressive.
I understand the response that you “wouldn’t want to belong to a party that had the kind of reaction discipline that [I’m] describing.” It’s certainly the response I would have given at any time in my life until somewhere in my 40s, at least.
But it’s a bit too facile: What on Earth is wrong with the members of an organization, acting in an organized manner in pursuit of a desired goal and in service to shared values, improving their ability to coordinate their actions in the context of that organization and its mission to more effectively achieve that goal and serve those values? It doesn’t mean that you don’t get to go home and read any novel or watch any movie you like, have a private conversation with any intimate expressing any point of view you like, or draft the outline for a tell-all book that you intend to publish at some point in the future. It is not an infringement on freedom and spontaneity beyond the context of the purposeful actions relevant to the purposeful organization.
It is no more odious than a football team subjecting itself to the discipline of drills, hoping to execute the disciplined reactions thus practiced as perfectly as possible whenver required. It’s no more odious, but a lot more important.
that, despite my gloriously undisciplined youth, for which I am not the least repentent, I have become a huge fan of discipline in my middle-age. Discipline is the means to liberation: It focuses the mind, body, and will, and enables them to be a vehicle for the fullest expression of the human spirit. This is where the Libertarians get it so completely wrong: They identify freedom as “freedom from.” But real freedom is “freedom to.” And discipline, both individual and collective, is the most potent means to expand that latter and more salient form of freedom.
Engagement with the state already increases our freedom in so many ways, and has enormous potential to continue to increase it in so many more. No, the state is not the only mechanism for increasing freedom: The market, non-governmental institutions, family, and all other sorts of human social facilitation do so as well. But to privilege one (usually “the market”) as being uniquely qualified as the vehicle of individual freedom, is to be completely and tragically ignorant of the complexity and subtlety of the human social landscape in which we thrive.
Discipline can be either oppressive or liberating, depending on how it is imposed and how it is used. Discipline mutually imposed and voluntarily accepted, motivated by the attraction of shared purpose, and used to extend the range of opportunities available to individuals and the potential to achieve a productive and fulfilling life, should not be eschewed because it is too easily associated with totalitarianism in our often unsupple minds.
A beautifully choreographed dance requires enormous discipline to produce and execute. The achievement of excellence in mind, body, or spirit similarly requires enormous discipline. And the achievement of excellence in the arrangement of our collective existence, balancing individual discretion with obligations to one another, maximizing “freedom to” and the growth of human consciousness, should be relegated to no less precise and powerful a tool.
The problem Steve, is that the criticism isn’t just from the left, and it isn’t just about policy, but style and perceptions as well.
Backroom political machinations aside (which are usually too clever by half anyway), it’s the end result that matters.
Like kids, politicians tend to live up to, or down to expectations.
If we make it clear that we want Ritter to be the leader we elected, then he’ll probably try harder.
If we expect him to play a cynical game of sacrificing his allies to score points with a theoretical center, then his advisors will be only too glad to oblige, as well.
He’s got a year or more to choose, so I’m not worried about Governor Penry yet.
But let me see if I can draw on a conversation I have with my wife about child rearing: I contend that grumbling at our daughter when she is misbehaving is not effective, that discipline should be quick and quiet. Similarly, I don’t think that Party grumbling really accomplishes what the grumblers would like it to. When factions of the Party have issues with any members in office, they should organize and present their grievance as robustly and forcefully as they feel necessary, but should do so out of public view.
I do see some game theoretic intricacies here: To some extent, it’s a game of chicken. Many in the Party want to move Ritter to the left with the threat of a withdrawal of their support, but the actual withdrawal of their support, if no one swerves first, would mean the “head-on-collision” of seeing Penry elected. It’s not irrational, but it is dangerous. Your point is, I think, that it is less dangerous this far out, and so no need to swerve so soon.
To be honest, though, I think Ritter’s duplicitousness is being exaggerated in all of this, and I still tend to give him a little more of the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know, maybe I’m a bit naive, and maybe I’m reacting too much to form and not enough to substance, but this shock-wave of polarization is, for me, a major red flag that the ape is more in play than the angel. And Parties do have a habit of pulling too hard toward their extreme, not allowing enough strategic give to the center. Again, it’s more the “feel” of this whole dynamic that puts me ill at ease with it.
Let me put it another way: Ritter’s worst sin, we might agree, is that he’s compromising his supporters and our values in order to maximize his potential to stay in office. Well, politics does involve some degree of compromising in order to stay in office. Of course, if you compromise too much, then there’s no value to staying in office other than personal aggrandizement, and no support is then deserved. But there is a legitimate balance to be struck between pursuing an unyielding agenda, and living to fight another day. So the mere fact that political survival is a consideration shouldn’t be a problem, just the determination of where that balance lies, and how effective the chosen strategy is likely to be.
Given the degree of nuance involved, the rhetoric of “betrayal” troubles me. In some ways, I’m just trying to work through this, to find my niche. And in some ways I have a natural empathy for someone who gets himself into trouble by keeping his eye on what he considers to be the big picture. I guess, in the end, I’m not convinced enough of the “meme” that’s being created about who and what Ritter is to be willing to let it be the only one being given much voice. Someone has to counterbalance it by insisting that the world is subtle and complex, that the challenges of striking the right balance are daunting, that there is value in defaulting to party unity rather than disintegration, and that the American custom of eating politicians live does not serve our collective interests.
You know, it’s entirely possible that I’m the one naive fool here who just doesn’t get it. But I’ve learned that, often enough, I’m the one naive fool who does, and so do not too readily defer to the wisdom of the local and current “many.”
But comprehension is always a work in progress. Tomorrow or the next day I might realize that I was completely wrong.
And I believe this is about form over over substance — where form is Ritter’s communication style, and substance is his final decision about the bills in question. Handled with skill and finesse, the former will often trump the latter, as Obama continues to demonstrate.
All the comments on this forum are calibrated by the history of our posts. Thus the weight assigned to our views can be adjusted accordingly (left/center/right … sensible/overwrought/down right wacko).
Most of us are not in a position to have a private conversation with the Governor, so we can only offer our advice in the medium available, whether that be protesting at a bill signing or simply offering our wisdom, such as it is, on this blog.
I would prefer a quiet whisper in the ear over a rancorous confrontation, but that’s just me. Who would you have take Ritter aside and have the conversation that appears to be necessary?
but I’m sure that there are people who can do it, and have done it.