President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

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

52%↑

48%↓

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
June 03, 2009 11:46 PM UTC

Ritter heckled off stage by angry grocery workers

  • 46 Comments
  • by: JeffcoBlue

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

As reported by the Associated Press.

Ignoring catcalls from angry union members, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed a package of bills he said will help struggling families and workers during the recession.

Members of a union representing grocery store workers yelled at the governor, calling him a “liar” and telling him he misled them when he vetoed a bill that would have given unemployment benefits to workers locked out by employers during a labor dispute.

Ritter told the union workers the bills he signed Tuesday will help all workers, including union members…

I don’t dispute that the bills Ritter signed yesterday will indeed help some people, but there is more to the story–and a very good reason these people took time out of their day to tell the Governor what they thought of this particular veto, more fundamental than the “he said she said” between him and the legislature.

When Ritter vetoed HB-1170 earlier this month, among his explanations was the effect the legislation might have on the states Unemployment Insurance fund. According to the Denver Post:

He said the recession is putting a strain on the unemployment fund and he wants to focus on putting people back to work.

“We said in the State of the State address that this has to be about jobs, it has to be about the economy and it has to be about how we protect people who are unemployed,” Ritter said. “This is a different question for me, and we answered it with a veto.”

Here’s the problem. Yesterday Ritter also signed SB-247, which greatly expands the available funds for unemployment compensation. Under this bill, the state will receive an additional $121 million from the federal government to put directly into the UI trust fund. This will raise the worst-case scenario projected balance of approximately $42 million to a relatively healthy $163 million.

It’s fair to say that with the help of SB-247, the unemployment fund is not in any danger (and never was, according to House and Senate testimony), raising serious questions about Ritter’s veto. At the very least, the reason he stated (pressure on the funds) is not valid. Since HB-1170 was amended to not take effect until well after the current negotiations between Colorado grocery stores and workers were complete, Ritter’s other stated reason–keeping the state “out of” an ongoing labor dispute–is also not valid.

Together, HB-1170 and SB-247 form a solid safety net for Colorado’s workers, and complement one another. Ritter can’t satisfactorily explain not signing HB-1170 into law. In fact, once you understand the full facts, it’s clear that he had no good reason to veto HB-1170 except for heartless political calculus with an eye toward next year’s (general) election.

In short, the Governor had a choice between principle and his campaign manager’s triangulation against working people to curry favor with business. And Ritter chose the latter. It was the biggest mistake of his political career.

Comments

46 thoughts on “Ritter heckled off stage by angry grocery workers

  1. I can’t help but say that he deserved it. Good for them. He needs to understand that actions have consequences and one of them may be him losing his job next year because he hasn’t kept his word on a number of issues that matter to a great many people.  

    1. I’m all in favor of people letting him know what they think of him when he starts. But I don’t like the idea of someone not being allowed to speak. Heckle away for the first ½ minute, then again when he leaves – but let him then speak.

          1. Freedom of speech means everybody has the same freedom – and dissenters have the freedom to boo like crazy.

            We’re not defending either side here, but both sides have the same “freedom of speech.” That’s the wrong defense. If you think it wasn’t a classy thing to do, that’s fine. But it’s not freedom of speech. No speaker has a “right” to be heard without being booed.

            1. then it’s the same end result as not allowing him to speak. In practice freedom of speech means letting a person at an event speak.

              I think people should make their displeasure with Ritter clear. But when it turns in to not allowing the speech, then we’ve shut down political discourse.

              1. The Governor has turned right for campagin tactics.

                Though I now support Sen Bennet, I can’t help but believe that the fact that he was once the Anschutz investment banker  had everything to do with his appointment.

                Times are getting harder. The bluster propping up Wall St has no concern about everyday folks.

                As a matter of fact, both Clinton and Bush II failed to tell the American middle class that  gloablaisation meant a decline in American middle class lifestyle.

                We return to the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

            1. between Colorado grocery stores and workers were complete, Ritter’s other stated reason–keeping the state ‘out of’ an ongoing labor dispute–is also not valid.”

              Bingo.  When you use an excuse as transparently false as this one you are clearly avoiding the truth. “Liar” is the appropriate term.

              Good to see that Ritter is signing some good legislation. Still sucks that he has betrayed union workers and isn’t man enough to admit his real reasons.  

              Once again, the grocery business is doing great and is very profitable right now with people eating out less during this recession. They don’t NEED to screw their workers to save jobs or stay profitable and Ritter doesn’t NEED to screw workers to save jobs or to stay out of this dispute. Lies.  Period.  

              1. I can’t imagine the shitstorm that he’ll have to punch through after he vetoes SB #180.

                Colorado’s Union Bosses have invested $100 million in Colorado Politics since Owens departed.  Whats been the return, $30 million in ColoradoWINS Union Dues?

                The real bitch is WINS operates in a Right-to-Work environment.  

                1. Nothing political, left/right, labor/management about that particular  statement, ‘turd.  When you say something that isn’t true, that’s a lie.  

                  Funny how you almost never address whatever it is you are allegedly responding to.  With the subject line “So your saying RITTER = LIAR?” the body of your response should address whether or not you agree that he lied.

                  You’d be taken more seriously here if you understood the basic concept of debate. Your “responses” rarely respond to anything anyone actually said. Which is why I’m hereby breaking up with you for good.  No point in any further non-exchange of ideas with you. Your communication is all one way in the talking but not listening tradition of today’s talking point regurgitating right, most often characterized by the standard “what I will say” response to questions they don’t wish to answer.

                  1. As to your need for a position … well calling one a LIAR versus saying they’re lying is not much different.

                    As to why everyone is saying RITTER = LIAR: I can only assume that the union bosses had a quid pro quo with the Guv on certain policy items. They have spent $100 mill on Colorado politics and have been given (in their opinion) nothing more then ColoradoWINS with Right-to-Work.

                    Maybe what I’m seeing is economic empathy with their failed investment or their investment in an asset that has failed to yield anything more then a negative return (in their opinion).

                    I guess I can see your point, you feel the Guv is a lying liar.

    2. The clip says he was “ignoring catcalls.”

      And DavidThi808 thinks this was about freedom of speech??? Or about Miss Milly’s School of Proper Manners????

      Give us a break! By 17:15:40 MDT, this site has waaaay more BS than it could possibly need in a full month without your adding to the supply.

      I suppose the union members weren’t wearing snazzy ties, either, and hadn’t shined their shoes with the governor’s favorite color of Shinola.

      1. and I failed to see that, too. Sounded like people that were rightfully pissed off let him know how they felt. If he can’t take the heat, he can feel free to get out of the kitchen (and not run for reelection.)  

          1. But, you can pretty much surmise that’s what happened because according to the article,

            “It is my great hope you can work this out. I made my case,” he said, and abruptly walked away from the podium when the catcalls continued.

            Sounds like things were pretty heated during the signing ceremony. Maybe it was in poor taste. I’ll even grant that. But his reasons for screwing labor are in pretty poor taste, too. His explanations are crap. His communication with folks on these issues is non existent. If this is the only place they can find an opportunity for him to hear them, then I say they had every right to go for it. Maybe this will teach Ritter a valuable lesson–improve your communication skills.  

            1. You assume Ritter isn’t communicating.

              The people at the signing ceremonies (they screwed up more than one) weren’t union bigwigs.

              Ritter did say he would veto this bill during the session to various legislators. People saying they are now surprised have selective memories.

              You and others may feel the Gov did you wrong, and you may not support him in the future (although I’m willing to bet union members won’t vote Republican).

              But, we have a moderate Gov who leans more towards business than union.  Like it, live with it, leave it or change it..

              1. I am going by what both state House and state Senators have been quoted as saying regarding Ritter and they have said he isn’t communicating with them on these issues.

                I vote we change it.  

              2. good to know, and could explain his vetoes of bills that help, you know, little people.

                As for selective memories, I’m inclined to believe both the Speaker of the House and the bill sponsor who, unlike you, were actually there for those non-conversations.

                Shortchanging the folks who check groceries and fight fires and clean buildings doesn’t make you a moderate. It does make you a standard issue politician willing to sell out working people once you get in power.

      2. And the Union folk were not wearing snazzy ties nor had shiny shoes.

        If the unions are upset with Ritter, ok.  Don’t come in on bill signings that have nothing to do with union issues and drown out guest speakers and the Gov when they are speaking.

        Union members came off as whiny poor sports and heckling does nothing to improve their image in the Gov’s eyes.

        As I said before, primary the Gov if you truly think he’s a “liar”.  If not, sit down and nurse your bruised ego somewhere else…

        1. Re: If the unions are upset with Ritter, ok.  Don’t come in on bill signings that have nothing to do with union issues and drown out guest speakers and the Gov when they are speaking.

          The preferred tactic is to pursue Ritter at every single appearance between now and the election and remind everyone there…and a wider audience reached by Miss Milly’s Manners blog…of what a Flip-Floppin’, Rat-fuckin’, Republican-in Democrats’-Shinola-Shoes he has proved to be! You vetos your bills, you pays the price.

          Politics is class warfare, brother, where you like it or not.  

          1. that will remind everyone there, and a wider audience, at every single appearance between now and the election, that union members look like whiney sore losers that can’t play well in politics.

            What is a more effective use of time for the unions do you think?  

            a) show up at the Gov’s public gatherings and call him a liar and heckle him, or

            b) find someone with enough guts to take him on and debate the issues in a public forum and let the voters decide?

            I have a feeling the unions will opt for optoin (a) since they can’t beat Ritter in Colorado.

            1. You think this is a game of cricket? Support a candidate and then get fucked by him and go off the field with a friendly “cheerio”? Or that the winning slogan will be “Politest Motherfucker on the ballot”?

              Ritter needs to be labeled for what he is. All methods that are legal are valid.

              Gotta say, the more I hear about “good manners” and “sore losers,” the more I’m inclined to think that people whose first priority is modes of behavior are entirely disconnected from the interests and issues of people, such as grocery store workers, who are among the lowest-paid in the economy.

              Sorta like insisting that victims of rapists be polite and act like “good losers” who don’t “whine” about their experience!  

              1. that will remind everyone there, and a wider audience at every single appearance between now and the election, that union members look like whiney sore losers that can’t play well in politics.

                What is a more effective use of time for the unions do you think?  

                a) show up at the Gov’s public gatherings and call him a liar and heckle him, or

                b) find someone with enough guts to take him on and debate the issues in a public forum and let the voters decide?

            2. Skip both A. and B. and simply cut Ritter off from all $$$ and volunteer time for the next election. I think that is an effective and highly appropriate response to his actions, considering how he has treated them.  

              1. the most effective of all.

                Hit ’em where it hurts, right in the pocketbook.

                But, then the risk of increased business influence on the Gov and decreased union influence (which, may not be achange from now since he obviously doesn’t seem to care).

  2. 1. Vetoed 1072

    2. Enacted Union Boss Paycheck Auto Deductions

    3. Unionized state workers (ColoradoWins), but gave them the Right-to-Work

    4. Made Unions spend $20-30million on 47, 49, 54

    5. Veoted 1170

    6. Is prepping to veto 180.

    Union Bosses are investors too. With this track record it is no wonder they feel they have pissed away $100-200 million in forced union member dues.

    1. Did Ritter make unions spend anything on 47. 49 and 54?

      But it’s good to see you’ve seen the light and are siding with unions these days.

    1. And if you think that this makes anyone the slightest bit more likely to vote for either of the union-bashing Republican jerkoffs you are considering, guess again. The Governor may not know who his friends are, but working people know who their friends are NOT.

    1. The Government Motors (GM) takeover assured two things: Union Bosses were kept fat and Chairman Obama could control yet another industry.  

      The worst part though were the Takings from bondholders [ie PERA, investor retirees, etc..] and the crushing of the rule of law in America that afforded the Takings.

      Follow the money ….. as usual its simple math that shows the affects, not the higher math promoted by the elite political-busniess class.

      I wanna be a Union Boss

      CREW on C-Span: ah, the payback would be card check, ah, I, ah, I, ah….

  3. The hecklers were rude.  

    I understand anger and resentment because of the veto. The Gov has vetoed bills I’ve cared about as well.

    But you don’t show up at others’ bill signing when they’ve worked hard on their issues.

    I respect unions, but the Domcratic Party isn’t only theirs.  Now they know where Ritter stands and it is their choice.

    Get someone to primary him.  Let your candidate run and see who wins.

    1. Democracy in action, isn’t it great?

      As a party, the Democrats are more open to a wider range of interests and agendas, but none of those individually has a monopoly on the party’s time and/or energy. It’s a tight rope that elected officials have to walk to try to serve the interests of as many as possible without incurring the wrath of everyone else.

      Whatever Gov. Ritter’s motives were, if we disagree with him to the point of believing that he’s no longer fit to serve in this capacity, then we should find someone more suitable to the office. That’s how it works. Not by catcalls and yelling, but by voting. Democratic term limits, so to speak.

  4. The Gov was not driven off…though he did beat a very hasty retreat through the poorly attended “Help Fair” that his office staged in conjunction with the signings.  

    In fact, the marathon ceremony concluded with the slate of bills that included the labor-loathed legislation.

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

48 readers online now

Newsletter

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