Colorado Governor's Race:

The race for governor in the purple state of Colorado features Democrat Bill Ritter (former D.A. of Denver) versus Republican Bob Beauprez (U.S. Rep. of the 7th C.D., south and east of Denver). According to the Denver Post, Ritter recently told a meeting of "several members of the state's business elite" that he agreed with 38 of Owens' 47 vetoes in 2005. Award-winning political columnist (and retired 22-year legislator, and my father) Jerry Kopel calls on Ritter to disclose to everyone which bills he would vetoed. My father also urges the state legislature's Democratic leadership to "talk some sense into him about how far he can go in losing the Democratic base and alienating Democratic legislators or nominees in order to ensure funding from the 'business elite'."

Just a thought, maybe all those bills deserved to be vetoed and the Dems that passed them were engaging in bad public policy.

On the other hand, maybe the most important thing, the only important thing, is keeping Dems in control, according to your "I am not a yellow dog Democrat" father.
8.24.2006 4:28am
This post is worthless without guns.
8.24.2006 10:14am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Well, being a conservative, I thought maybe Owens didn't do enough. Romanoff doesn't come across as that radical, but Fitz-Gerald does to me. In the last session, the Democrats seemed to me to be passing every kook-brained liberal feel-good scheme any of them could come up with in order to compensate for their longg soljourn in the wildnerness. And the only real voice of reason was that of Owens.

So, I think that your father is quite wrong here. Ritter is running as fast as he can to the center. I still see him described as hard core liberal (which I have never bought). Nevertheless, I expect him to win by wooing the business community away from his opponent, pulling a bulk of the moderates, and almost all of the Democrats.

My view is that if the Democrats were smart, they would be happier with one house of the legislature and the governorship than both houses and a Republican governor. Either will block some of the most liberal proposals, but the advantage of the governor's mansion is that the governor gets to run the state, deal with Washington, and, most importantly to me, appoint the judiciary. I think that the whole gerrymander problem here, where the courts (unconstitutionally, IMHO) took over redistricting, then the legislature did their redistricting, just to have that thrown out by the same judiciary appointed primarily by Lamm and Romer that did the first one. In short, the math is 2 1/2 branches of government versus one.
8.24.2006 10:28am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):

My mother was an avid watcher of "Colorado Inside Out", and often when she would see you on TV, she would remark that she knew your father when she was state legislative chair for the LMV and its head lobbyist. And then, often point out that though you appeared relatively conservative there, it was only in relation to the other regulars there, and then point to your father as proof that you really weren't as conservative as you came across there, at least to her.
8.24.2006 10:35am
According to my Colorado relatives Beauprez is a right-wing nut. Any comments?
8.24.2006 1:30pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
From the Kopel article listing four of the vetoed bills:

Bartels continues: "A bill requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraceptive information to rape victims? Dead.

A measure creating a public list of companies whose workers depend on Medicaid for health care? Dead.

Legislation allowing the Regional Transportation District to take away routes from private drivers and give them to union drivers? Dead.

A bill to study sentencing for juveniles convicted of felonies? Dead."

With the (possible) exception of the last one, this sounds like a list of some truly bad pieces of legislation which Colorado's governor was correct in vetoing. It's not the business of government to force hospitals to prescribe or provide information about contraceptives. Nor is it proper for government to interfere in the employer-employee relationship by trying to perpetuate the third-party payer system for health care let alone (to say nothing of the intrusiveness of this sort of disclosure requirement). The third seems like a clear sop to labor unions at the expense of someone who is able to provide better value to their customers. Given the first three, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something onerous in the fourth as well.
8.24.2006 1:41pm

How is what a father believes "proof" of the beliefs of their offspring?
8.24.2006 7:18pm