Why Bill Ritter Is Still Paying The Price

Today's Denver Post panned Bill Ritter's State of the State speech as "uninspiring."

Gov. Bill Ritter's State of the State address Thursday sounded more like an
interim report by the Milquetoast Committee than a stirring call to action.

The Post was a cheerleader for the governor throughout the election, to the point that its coverage of Bob Beauprez was clearly calculated to damage Beauprez. It didn't consider the possibility of a HB 07-1072 and was taken aback when that surfaced immediately.

Even though Ritter vetoed that bill, he still had an outstanding IOU to labor, and paid it with his executive order. The Post was sufficiently upset that it published an unusual front page editorial.

Things haven't been the same since. The question isn't "why" Bill Ritter is paying a price, it is really how long he will be paying it.

Best of Times - Take 2

We don't get paid by the word, but perhaps Colorado Media Matters does.

Colorado Media Matters is one of the best barometers of potential political trouble for Democrats. When they go into defensive spin mode every fact is a lie and every lie is a fact to hear them tell it. The only important information one can get from their defensive pieces is that they think that the politician they are defending has problems with the issue they are writing about.

Today, it is, amazingly enough about what we called "The Biggest Bungle of 2007." They call it "Union Paradise." We'd guess that it is all a matter of perspective.

The Biggest Bungle of 2007

It seems fitting on this last day of 2007 to think back to what are likely Bill Ritter's two biggest bungles of 2007. They seem so closely related that we are counting them as a single bungle.

The first was his veto of HB07-1072. The veto wasn't a bungle, but the situation was bungled badly by his party. The bill, a modification of the Labor Peace Act came as a complete surprise to the business community despite Bill Ritter's spokesman's claim that he had campaigned on it.

It turned out that he had made some backroom promises to unions that he had conveniently forgotten to inform his business backers about.

The timing of the bill couldn't have been worse from Ritter's position. He had just accepted $250,000 in post election campaign contributions from the business community to retire his campaign debt.

Ritter did veto the bill after it became obvious that it would sour his relations with the business community and with both of Denver' major daily papers.

This created a problem for Ritter. He had not fulfilled a secret campaign pledge to labor.

He solved this problem by creating "partnerships" with his union buddies, promising them that they could collect union dues from state employees.

His partnership plan drew much heat from the Denver Post which, except for HB 1072, had been a cheerleader for Ritter. It declared in an unusual front page editorial that Ritter risked being a one term Governor.

When a politician manages to turn a major newspaper from a supporter to an opponent, that event has to rank as the biggest bungle of 2007.

Backroom Promises May Backfire

Does anyone recall that the reason that Bill Ritter vetoed HB 1072 was that he had made backroom promises to labor during the campaign that he forgot to tell his business backers about. Business went ballistic.

Well, Big labor thinks that a backroom promise made is a promise to be kept, and it is making demands on Ritter, according to the Denver Post.

The AFL-CIO's executive council said it will push for the reintroduction of pro-labor legislation vetoed by Ritter and vowed to get a commitment from him to sign it.

"We intend to pass the legislation again and secure a clear commitment from the governor to sign it," the unsigned statement from the organization's executive council said.

If Ritter bends or breaks, expect another explosive anti-Ritter editorial from the Post about his being a one term Governor. He'll deserve it.