Kabuki Theater at the State Capitol

I was invited down to the capitol for Governor Ritter's end of bill signing time (or some title like that) press conference today. I've never been to one of these before so it was interesting to participate. It seems almost like a set piece of theater where everyone knows in advance what questions will be asked and what the Governor will say in response. We didn't learn anything new.

I can see why there is such an urge on the part of reporters to play gotcha – you get 1 question and the politico is ready to deflect any question they don't like and then move to the next person. And so to get something interesting you almost have to ask a variation of the "do you still beat your wife" type of question. With that said, the questions were all good and Ritter did speak to each rather than dancing around them. So because everyone treated this professionally, it provided about as much information as possible.

With that said, I think it's best to think of these things as being like a wedding, you go because you like the person, or you are returning the favor for the times that they did talk to you one on one. And the office of Governor does deserve the attention of the press. But it's not an event that's going to provide much in the way of anything new. With that said…

1. The TV talent was all dressed in suits while everyone else (camera operators, print reporters) were dressed, shall we say, very comfortably.
2. Lynn Bartels is clearly the top dudette of the political press corp. She got the first question and managed 3 in the event (everyone else got 0 or 1). She did it quite well without being too pushy – an impressive balancing act.
3. We start with Ritter walking in (they don't stand up for him) and he says hi and then makes a short speech listing out what was accomplished over the legislative session. One thing I find interesting about Ritter, he lists out what he has accomplished in a matter of fact way so that you get the meat – but it's not terribly exciting the way he presents it. That hurts him politically.
4. There were a number of questions about the fireman's bill veto, that the firemen were upset with him, etc. He spoke directly to that laying out his reasons, first that this was about pay because it impacted just 11 fire districts, and second that he did not think the state should be telling those districts how to handle their contract negotiations – especially as some had voted down collective bargaining. He also talked about how his job requires telling supporters no sometimes and he believes that this will not impact his relations with the unions.
   My personal opinion is that this bill was one where the legislature passed it to make one of their interest groups happy and the Governor is then supposed to play the designated grown up. The true problem here is that this occurred on top of the lockout bill veto and as the second veto of the two, it's the one that has everyone's focus.
5. My favorite answer of his was when someone asked him to speak to the fact that there had been some tax exemptions removed, some new ones had also been added. And Ritter's response to that was – yeah, they do that every year. Direct, to the point, no bullshit answer. Same thing when someone asked him to respond to Wadhams saying he was doing a lousy job and he basically said that yeah, Wadhams will say that about anything he does.
6. Some discussion about addressing the mess in the constitution. I didn't catch why but apparently the next big thing is the ballot in '11 (why not '10 no one said). And the Gov did say that what can be done in legislation has been done and it will now take revising the constitution. He also spoke to the defeat of 59 and said that to be successful it will require a significant education effort.
7. Toward the end, as the lockout veto had only been mentioned in passing I asked about that. (I have no idea if he knew who I was when he pointed at me.) I asked him why the process around this was such a mess when it was an all Democratic capitol. And I then pointed out that when this bill arrived on his desk either signing or vetoing it impacted the negotiations so vetoing did have an impact. He did not look happy at how I phrased the second part of the question.
   Ok, so on part one he stated that one of his aides told Duran and his daughter (UFCW-7 is apparently changing it's name to Duran & Children) that it would be vetoed. And that another aide told the main legislators that it would be vetoed. He did not claim that he himself had said so, but he did state point blank that his aides had stated this. This was unequivocal – but we don't know what was actually said or how clear it was.
   On part two his argument is that contracts coming due now had their negotiations start back in the end of '08 when this legislation had not been introduced yet. And with a veto he kept things as they were when it started so it did not change the situation. So he owned up to the fact that a veto was impacting the negotiations – and he went for not changing the advantage of either side.
   In a one on one interview I would have followed up by asking if he thinks the present approach is fair. And if it's unfair, then is keeping the power balance in negotiations more important than righting bad law. But the venue does not allow for follow-up.
   What's a bit screwy in all this he said/she said and reasoning is that Ritter alluded that if the start date had been further out he would have been open to it. Yet that would have been an easy thing to accomplish in negotiations, especially for a Governor bragging about how he got the health insurers to move from opposed to neutral on the bill for autistic medical care. And he also talked about how if next year there were fewer contracts up – there are always hundreds of contracts expiring. The bottom line on this is everyone is spinning and we're left with a really unfair law.
8. So a couple more questions and then after answering one the Gov said thank you and turned and left. Lynn Bartels shouted a question to him as he left (channeling her inner Sam Donaldson) and he turned and smiled at her but did not break stride.

So that was it. And I don't think there was a single question about Ritter's successes. Even more than transportation, healthcare, etc is the fact that we are in a world of economic hurt and our state budget is getting everything covered and things are running well. Quiet competence is way underappreciated, but it is an impressive achievement in this climate.

I talked to Lynn Bartels afterwards when she asked me if I was media - I said I wasn't sure as I'm a blogger. She said she does read ColoradoPols and from a couple of comments it is clear she does. So Lynn – hi.

They also tried to get me a short one on one interview with the Governor either before and after but time did not allow – they are now shooting for next week. So all the suggested questions posted on Pols, I'm hanging on to the ones I think are the best for when that happens. I think the Governor realizes that the blogosphere is a key venue for an elected official now – although I will know better after asking him about this. Personally I think a candidate who is being hammered on the web, if they don't get their side presented, can be toast before the campaigning even starts (exhibit 1 is Bob Schaffer).