In defense of a governor who shouldn't need defending
Governor Bill Ritter is arguably the most powerful person in Colorado. His election in November was just short of a landslide. And in the two months since his inaugural, he has helped calm the Amendment 41 debate, directed aid to Colorado's blizzard ravaged southeast counties, recommended full funding for the new science and engineering complex at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, indicated he will approve major renewable energy legislation, saved the state a reported $1.6 million on prescription pharmaceuticals...
I could go on like this for quite awhile.
But a casual observer of Colorado politics might get the impression that Ritter is a governor under siege, taking heavy fire from all sides. Today the Post's Tom McGhee reported that Ritter is attempting to win back labor's trust after his veto of HB-1072. The Rocky's Berny Morson wrote that Ritter is considering vetoing two education bills, one carried by a Republican and one carried by a Democrat. And the Post's Jeri Clausing reported that "in just two months in office, Gov. Bill Ritter has emerged on the opposite side of candidate Bill Ritter on two key issues, raising questions of credibility and the reality of carrying out his sweeping Colorado Promise."
The last statement is especially disingenuous. Nether of the issues Ritter allegedly flip-flopped on - HB-1072 and the allocation of federal mineral lease dollars - was even part of the Colorado Promise, a document the Ritter for Governor campaign released in September of 2006. At the time, I wrote that, "The comprehensive 52-page policy book takes on every issue facing Colorado, from healthcare to the economy to the environment to illegal immigration." On February 11, 2007, I reread the document and realized that'd I'd been wrong. Themes like "energy" or "education" were mentioned far more than issues like, say, union voting procedures.
It's true that some of the voters who cast their ballots for Bill Ritter were voting against his Republican opponent or for pet issues. But I believe most voters chose Ritter because they wanted major, 21st Century reforms for our state's healthcare, transportation, education and clean energy systems.
In other words, voters want the Colorado Promise.
There is no excuse for breaking a campaign pledge. But the two flip-flops alleged in the Post are less serious than Clausing makes them out to be. The first is that Ritter's veto of HB-1072 contradicted earlier statements to labor groups; I discussed that situation on February 9, 2007. The second is that using increases "in federal mineral lease money to shore up the state's failing education fund" would violate Ritter's pledge to "give priority to energy-impacted areas for severance tax and federal mineral lease moneys." Even those alleging this change of heart state that they haven't seen Ritter's plan yet, which makes the whole thing sound like preemptive politicking.
In politics, the perception of smoke can create a very real fire. But there's not even smoke here. Just a lot of hot air.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
I could go on like this for quite awhile.
But a casual observer of Colorado politics might get the impression that Ritter is a governor under siege, taking heavy fire from all sides. Today the Post's Tom McGhee reported that Ritter is attempting to win back labor's trust after his veto of HB-1072. The Rocky's Berny Morson wrote that Ritter is considering vetoing two education bills, one carried by a Republican and one carried by a Democrat. And the Post's Jeri Clausing reported that "in just two months in office, Gov. Bill Ritter has emerged on the opposite side of candidate Bill Ritter on two key issues, raising questions of credibility and the reality of carrying out his sweeping Colorado Promise."
The last statement is especially disingenuous. Nether of the issues Ritter allegedly flip-flopped on - HB-1072 and the allocation of federal mineral lease dollars - was even part of the Colorado Promise, a document the Ritter for Governor campaign released in September of 2006. At the time, I wrote that, "The comprehensive 52-page policy book takes on every issue facing Colorado, from healthcare to the economy to the environment to illegal immigration." On February 11, 2007, I reread the document and realized that'd I'd been wrong. Themes like "energy" or "education" were mentioned far more than issues like, say, union voting procedures.
It's true that some of the voters who cast their ballots for Bill Ritter were voting against his Republican opponent or for pet issues. But I believe most voters chose Ritter because they wanted major, 21st Century reforms for our state's healthcare, transportation, education and clean energy systems.
In other words, voters want the Colorado Promise.
There is no excuse for breaking a campaign pledge. But the two flip-flops alleged in the Post are less serious than Clausing makes them out to be. The first is that Ritter's veto of HB-1072 contradicted earlier statements to labor groups; I discussed that situation on February 9, 2007. The second is that using increases "in federal mineral lease money to shore up the state's failing education fund" would violate Ritter's pledge to "give priority to energy-impacted areas for severance tax and federal mineral lease moneys." Even those alleging this change of heart state that they haven't seen Ritter's plan yet, which makes the whole thing sound like preemptive politicking.
In politics, the perception of smoke can create a very real fire. But there's not even smoke here. Just a lot of hot air.
Cross-posted at SquareState.
Labels: Bill Ritter, Colorado Labor Peace Act, media, punditry, Western Slope issues
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home