Liberal and Loving It

My lunch with Hizzoner

I got the chance to interview John Hickenlooper during lunch today. The most interesting thing about the interview was that his answers were not political. It's a hard thing to describe but with everyone else I have interviewed, there is a political influence to what they say. What they talk about, how they phrase it, what points they touch on. With Hickenlooper it was more like a conversation with a fellow business owner (which is his previous job).

When he was first considering running, he went and talked to a number of mayors to find out from them what the job was like and if they enjoyed it. That makes perfect sense to me but I wonder how many politicians understand that. And then starting to campaign just 6 months before the election, again something that is "too late" by the conventional wisdom yet makes good sense (and worked).

For those wondering what Hick is going to do next and why he isn't running for higher office – I think he finds the job of mayor rewarding and that a lot remains to be done. Just as you don't leave a start-up until it is successful, you don't leave the mayorship until you have got the city running smoothly. I don't think he views being mayor as a stepping stone, nor do I think he's got any real plans on what to do once he gets the city running smoothly.

As I said, not looking at things like a politician.

Ok, so on to the discussion. I told him he found a magic lamp and he got one wish. He asked if it could be for the Rockies to win the World Series (notice how with Elway gone the Broncos get no love). I said sure but that would be an interesting statement about him as a mayor. He agreed, and then said he would ask for 2 small wishes – to complete FastTraks and to improve our K-12 schools. It's interesting that he put FastTraks so high and if there had been more time I would have asked why.

I asked him what on K-12 and he listed out numerous areas for improvement, including all the major ones. But he then zeroed in on two items. His first was to get every child reading by 3^rd grade. From his discussion he doesn't see it as a panacea but he sees it as an important & necessary step. And also as something specific that can be accomplished. This is his start-up background – you find some key step and you make it happen.

His other major point, and this was I think really good, was that we all say that education is of the utmost importance. But then we go work on other issues. He wants to see the Chamber of Commerce and others actually put their primary effort into improving education. Because what we have today is everyone gives lip service to education, and then puts their effort into something else.

I then asked him what he thinks is the big issue Denver will face over the next 10 – 20 years. He had an immediate answer – that it will be our adapting to an economy where energy will change everything. That oil will stay expensive and climb again and green energy will become pervasive. And how this changes everything from industry to what we build and where we live.

It's an interesting answer because this will have varied impacts across the spectrum. And it will lead to some businesses going away while others expand, as well as new ones coming into being. All of that has a significant impact on a city, especially a core city like Denver. It's also interesting because he spoke of how it will impact people and how they live. These are not direct issues for a city government, but they have a tremendous impact on the city as a whole.

Mayor Hickenlooper clearly considers the large issues and trends and how they will impact the city. A very useful trait in today's world.

We then discussed the economy. A lot of what he discussed is what everyone I talk to says – worst since the great depression and worse than even it in some ways. City revenue dropped horribly in February and they are working to determine how to handle it. I asked him specifically about increasing taxes and/or layoffs and he said both are on the table. But that first they have to show that they have wrung every last savings they can out of the system before going to the taxpayers or employees and saying there is no alternative.

And he said they are not there yet. He talked about how they centralized their IT operations and through a single central team and standardizing on their h/w and s/w they saved a boatload of money. (The guy who headed that up is now running OIT.) He's now looking at doing the same thing for additional systems like their motor pool (they have 5). What's funny is that the various departments fight this because they are worried that a central system will be too bureaucratic. As Hick said – no one worries more about inefficient bureaucratic systems than government employees.

He also said the unanimous feedback he has throughout all departments is everyone would like to see across the board pay cuts instead of layoffs. And throughout the discussion of the economy the mayor kept repeating that an individual laid off is then out of the economy and that is a really bad thing. So I think it is safe to assume that we will see pay cuts before we see layoffs or tax increases.

I also think he will have to face pay cuts, layoffs, and tax/fee increases before he can wring every inefficiency out of the city government because there just isn't time to find and improve everything. This downturn is gigantic and we are in a world of hurt. We don't have 2 – 3 years to work through additional efforts that bring about the improved efficiency. With that said, Hick is clearly someone who sees the situation as it is and is focused on handling it as well as can be done.

He talked a bit about saying "I was wrong" when he makes a mistake (the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays sign being his big example). This is interesting because in my world that is what you do – mistakes are expected and you just say "my bad" and figure out what to do next. But as Hick said, it's rarely done by a politician and so his owning up to being imperfect is viewed as different. I think it easily makes him a better mayor – and I think more popular too.

He also talked about how his administration works very hard to cooperate with the other cities in the area. I'd say he's been very successful in that you never hear any other cities complaining about Denver. That is an amazing accomplishment, but one that no one involved in will ever get any credit for. Quiet competence is always under appreciated.

So what do we have with Mayor John Hickenlooper? We have a very unusual elected official in that he has found his own path both to running for office and running the city. (He appointed people based on qualifications for the job, not political connections.) This approach is part of what makes him such a compelling figure. But only part of it. After all, there are lots of experienced executives, with a science degree, who would take his approach to governing (like yours truly). But you don't see us getting elected.

I think the other significant attribute (for those wanting to clone his success) is he has a way of being straight with you in a way that you appreciate it. It's like the occasional teacher who makes you work like crazy to excel in class – and you thank them for it. Or the boss at work where you knock yourself out to accomplish more than you ever thought you could – and you love the job. Part of this he learned running his restaurants but it's different talking to an entire city in this way.

Or as he put it – he has this ability to get everyone a little bit mad at him. And that's a good thing.

Campaigning on the web

So you're a candidate running for office. And you now know that most close campaigns will be won or lost on the web. But effectively using the web is much more than having a website, blog, and a twitter feed. Providing the tools with the knowledge of how to use them effectively is like giving a kid his first rifle and telling him to go out in the woods and get the family dinner. In both those cases the lack of training means the most likely outcome is shooting yourself in the foot.

The fundamental concept you need to understand about the web is that it runs on credibility. And credibility comes from persuasive argument backed up by links to credible sources with supporting documentation. This is the polar opposite of TV where the fundamental message is the sound bite. Long answers are death on TV. Sound bites are death on the web. To succeed, you must tailor your message for the medium.

This is key, to succeed on the web requires detailed credible statements.

So what to do? First, read What Would Google Do. It is fundamentally a discussion about how to market in today's world. And that includes how to market a political candidate. The world has turned upside down and this book details that change.

Second, there is tremendous opportunity here for those that make use of this. Short posts by the candidate on a topic, written in a way that Google will rank it well (SEO) and placed where others will tend to find it and/or link to it, means that when people are looking for information on that topic, they will find that post. If someone cares about water policy in Colorado and is reading several posts about it, and comes across one that they think shows a really good grasp of all the issues and how to address them – and they see it signed by a candidate – they've just won their vote.

Candidates & their campaigns also need to do it appropriately (not too much, not too little). But generally that means don't over-blast on a subject and don't over-blast in a given venue. But spread out over different topics in different blogs/forums/sites, there is pretty much no limit to that.

And it has to be from the candidate. No they don't have to write it themselves and no they don't have to post it themselves. But it has to sound like they wrote and posted it. It has to be in their voice, first person, and without the marketing verbiage that festoons most candidate PR pieces. Because if it's viewed as marketing fluff it is discounted by most readers. (Congressman Jared Polis is superb at this – he writes his own stuff.)

Candidates will be defined in the blogosphere and this definition will be based on a lot of data. This tends to be a definition that is virtually impossible to change because of the strength of that data. Everyone has their own conclusion from all that data, but it's amazing how much agreement there is across the spectrum. (I had conversations with numerous Udall & Schaffer supporters where we basically agreed on what both Udall and Schaffer would do in the Senate – we just disagreed on which of those was better.)

I believe if this is done effectively a candidate may have won over enough people a year from now that they'll start the campaigns with a significant advantage. And as the campaign progresses, they'll own the web for the campaign because of the large amount of your content that is already highly rated – that advantage cannot be countered over a short period.

Associated with the above is the concept of transparency.

Voters want to know what you are thinking and why. To a degree that occurs with the above. But it is important to focus on this because again, if people view you as being fully forthcoming, that buys you both credibility and support. I have seen numerous responses to politicians who lay out why they voted a certain way in the vein of "I disagree with your reasoning on this but I appreciate you explaining it to us and you have my vote." Got that? You can get the votes of people who disagree with your vote if you're up front with them. Not always, but some.

For officeholders, when they decide how they are going to vote on a contentious issue, they should announce it via an email blast followed immediately by posts to the main blogs. And it has to go into detail as to why. However they vote some groups are going to be pissed, but this way you create the initial frame of the discussion. And then being involved in the follow-on discussion brings the arguments of the candidate into the discussion. The alternative is that the discussion occurs, but with the candidate's view being framed by others.

To pick on a Democrat this time, let's use the example of Senator Bennet's vote on the cram-down legislation awhile ago (he voted against it). Every time Senator Bennet comes up for discussion and the discussion touches on the economy, this is brought up. It is there in blog after blog, comment after comment. But what greatly harms him in this is that he never spoke to the specifics of why he voted as he did. So his position is being defined by others. The lack of transparency continues to hurt him on this issue.

Success on the web means transparency. Transparency means tell people why.

Finally, the key issue is not hiring people to do your web response, it's what that response will be. Don't confuse getting an infrastructure in place with determining an effective response. Those are two very different things. Don't overanalyze what you will do, who should do what, etc. Just start writing. There is no "correct" way to get your message out. There are many ways and the trick is to try and see what works best for you.

Next: Damage Control

The New Definition of Credibility

A giant change that has occurred is that people no longer go to a source and read/view what that source presents to them. I.e., on the web most people do not go to the Denver Post home page to then check all the stories the Post has listed. Instead most people come to individual stories via links from elsewhere and via Google searches. This is a significant difference in that it is no longer the Post pushing the stories but the user pulling what is of interest.

The other giant change is that when people are finding info of interest via links and searches, they tend to not even know who the source is in many cases, and definitely don't put much of a premium on where it came from. So a high listing on Google or links from a page many hit gives an article more credibility and impact than saying it was in the NY Times.

Winston Churchill started his books on WWII  as soon as the war was over – because those who wrote first would define history's view of the war. A candidate needs to get their side out first, in detail, with links to supporting documentation. And post that in the various blogs, not just on their website. Because if they don't post first, others get to define the story.

This bears repeating – you will win or lose on the web based on two things, links and page rank. Links and page rank occur primarily from the quantity of quality posts about a candidate. And quality does not mean positive – it means a post that people view as credible and readable. This means the web is won or lost well before the final run up to the election. A candidate will be defined in the blogosphere and this definition will be based on a lot of data. This tends to be a definition that is virtually impossible to change because of the strength of that data. Everyone has their own conclusion from all that data, but it's amazing how much agreement there is across the spectrum.

For the skeptical, let's look at the coverage of Iran today. The MSM has basically been shut down in Iran. We are getting our news from Twitter, Facebook, & YouTube. It is the aggregated on sites like HuffPo & The Daily Dish. And what has happened to the quality and depth of the news? I think it's better as we are getting the raw feeds from everyone. We are each left to sift through the info, decide what to read/watch, and what level of credibility to give to each. That's a lot more work, but it also forces us to think more about what we are seeing. In the requirement to think, we learn more.

As to the worry that we do not have as good a foundation to weigh what we see – yep. But the professional reporters don't always get it right either. And when we all view and discuss and post and link on the stories, we learn from each other. And in that discussion we will many times, in the group effort, get a more accurate, and more nuanced picture. Watching Iran is the future of news, and I think it looks very promising.

Equally important, you will notice that outside of the MSM itself, there is no concern that not having reporters on the ground is a major problem. People are clearly comfortable with this new approach. This is the final death knell for newspapers – with no strong concern at their passing there is nothing left to counter the economic fact that newspapers cannot make a profit.

(Before you feel too bad for newspapers, keep in mind that they still, even now at death's door, are unwilling to try anything radically different. I proposed to two newspapers here that they run the interviews I do with politicians & candidates on their websites as they no longer do that. I was turned down because doing so "would require fact checking, editing, approval by the paper, etc." Even at death's door, changing the process is not open to consideration.)

The web has additional impact in that, just as newspapers would drive what hard news TV stations would do, the blogosphere now drives what the MSM does. The U.S. Attorney story hit the big time, and stayed there, because of Josh Marshall at TPM. I've seen phrases I first coined in the last election appear in the Denver area MSM 2 – 3 days later. There were times I wrote posts that were purposely aimed at just 4 people – all of them reporters.

I think this change is bringing about a significant beneficial change for our political system. Because credibility on the web comes from information. Yes a lot of it is slanted. Yes some of it is false. And there are a million opinions about what all that information means. And those opinions become part of the information. But think about it, that means we are discussing & evaluating candidates in depth. The day of a candidate who campaigns in trite vacuous sound bites is ending.

Next: What should a candidate do (bad news – it's harder, good news – it's a lot cheaper).

The changing world of political campaigns

Marketing has radically changed over the last 5 years. And we, like everyone else, are trying to figure out what we should do to market Windward. But this change is equally gigantic for another system – and that's political campaigns. A lot of these changes hold equally well for both. A candidate is a product. And a political campaign is a marketing effort. This is not meant to denigrate candidates (my mom is a representative in the Hawaii state house), it's just pointing out that there are great similarities.

Here's the thing, how a candidate uses the web will make a substantial difference in how they do in the election. It presently has greater impact than anything except paid TV ads. And by 2012 it will probably surpass TV. Candidates in close races will win or lose based on their Internet strategy.

But "use the web" can take many meanings. A candidate needs to have a good website, but that has little impact. A video like the "Macaca" one can kill a candidate, but that is a rare event – and the real lesson from that is you need to respond to what comes out on the web. Posting tweets are a part of this, but again a small part.

Let's start off with an example of the impact of the web in the '08 election. No not Obama, let's look at the Senate race in Colorado which was supposed to be very close - Bob Schaffer [R] vs. Mark Udall [D]. But as we started the election (after Labor Day) an interesting thing occurred – Bob Schaffer was already seriously down in the polls. And he remained down even with millions poured in both from his own campaign and independent expenditures. It was over before it even started.

What happened? Bob Schaffer was taken out in the blogosphere over the summer. And it was done in such a way that by September it was too late to counteract. And the hits kept occurring from then up to election day, with Schaffer's campaign and the 527s backing him not knowing how to respond.

The end result was a blow-out and I think the Colorado GOP still doesn't understand what happened. To be honest, I don't think the Colorado Democratic party really understands it either. The people who understand it are a number of independent individuals who were among those who contributed to the effort.

So what happened?

There are a lot of items that go into that answer, and it will be multiple posts to cover all of it. But let's start with item # 1. Things no longer go away. They may recede into the background but they no longer go away. They are out there on the web forever, never more than a single link in an article or Google search away.

George Allen was not beat because he was recorded calling an Indian-American Macaca (twice). He was beat because unlike the old days when it would have hit the news for a day or two and then gone away, it remained out there every day up to the election. And every time someone opposed to Allen posted anything against him, they would find a way to mention the video and put a link to it. Virtually every voter in Virginia saw that video – multiple times. Every Jim Webb supporter saw it and that encouraged them to work harder. Many Allen supporters were disheartened by it. And virtually all undecided voters took it into account.

Bad press keeps coming round. It used to be a story hit, ran for 1 – 2 days max, then it was over. And it wasn't revisited – because the press was always looking for something new and found "old news" uninteresting. Again, on the web any given story is always just a Google search away. And many posts on new issues will bring up old ones.

I think this is actually a good thing – we now are seeing our elected officials as the sum of their actions and from that get a much more accurate picture. But it means the candidate is judged by items they wish would fade over time. Or to put it another way, a candidate will be judged primarily by who he or she is, not by how the marketing tries to sell her or him.

What destroyed the Bob Schaffer campaign is that the stories that defined Bob Schaffer were those put out by Democratic activists. And the stories that defined his opponent were those put out by, again, Democratic activists. The GOP activists were mostly (not entirely) missing in action on the web. And so both candidates were defined by Democratic activists. And with that, it was a blowout for Mark Udall [D].

Come September '10 if both candidates in a race have been well defined by one side then that side has a tremendous advantage. Depending on how much better one side did, it adds 5 – 10 points to that candidate.

And when does a candidate need to start their effort on the web?

Yesterday.

Next: The new definition of credibility

Josh Penry’s announcement speech

This is a copy of the announcement speech Josh Penry just gave. If he ad-libbed at all in the speech it will not be reflected here.

Good morning. Well it's an incredible honor to stand with you here this morning -- along with Jamie, Emme and Chase, my parents and family, and so many friends. Thank you Representative McNulty, thank you Stacy Mascarenas, both, for your generous words and strong support. Both of these new faces represent a new generation of leadership who are playing an important role in getting our Party, our state and our country heading back in the right direction.

And to my wife Jamie: I couldn't be more proud of her. She's right, I didn't make her give that speech, but after that performance, I

might ask her to do it again. Are you with me? Jamie is a

remarkable woman – I've never met anyone stronger. I'm lucky to have her as my wife, and Colorado will be fortunate to have her as First Lady.

 

And we are both lucky to have such terrific kids – Chase and Emme are our pride and joy. This election is important, but they are more important. And that's why you're going to see us out a lot, together, as a team, on the long and exciting journey ahead.

 

It is a truly beautiful day here in Western Colorado. But we're used to that, aren't we?

But this day is just a little bit different.

That's because today is a new day... a new day for those of us who know Colorado can do better.

A new day for those of us who see the direction of this country and our state, and we're concerned, and we're ready to push back, to fight back and chart a new beginning.

A new day for you and me and so many others who are ready to move beyond the failed leadership and failed choices of both political parties that have landed our economy and our politics in the ditch.

Yes, today is a new day for those of us who believe that, no matter how tough the times, no matter how bad the news, no matter how difficult the choices right now, our best days are still ahead.

I believe it, our best days are ahead. Colorado can do better. But it won't happen automatically…. or easily …. or without tough choices and real sacrifice. The next Governor of this State has big challenges waiting on that desk.

And yet, despite all the challenges, Colorado can find its way back to progress and prosperity. I believe it. If we pull together, if we come together, we can change the course of events ….we can get this great State moving in the right direction again.

And that's why we're here this morning -- to get Colorado moving again. To get this economy back on its feet and moms and dads working again. To push an "all of the above" energy policy that generates more energy for America and more jobs for Coloradans. To raise standards in our schools, expand educational opportunity, choice and achievement for students, and make sure college remains affordable and within reach for those who strive for it.

Yes, to take a fresh look at the state's budget, put an end to the business-as-usual tax and spend mindset in Denver, and prove that the state can invest in schools and roads and public safety and other priorities without asking for a new tax or a new fee with the dawning of each new day.

These are goals we share, this is an agenda that will get Colorado moving again, and it's the reason I'm running to be the next Governor of the State of Colorado.

 

The 2010 election is shaping up to be one of the most important in the history of this State. The stakes are real -- and it's a whole lot more than a simple contest between Republicans and Democrats.

Because, let's be honest, in recent times both political parties have

let America and Colorado down. They've failed this generation, and

worse, they've failed those to come.

And as Republicans we've got to 'fess up to our share of it all.

Over the last decade, our Party managed to surrender the mantle of good government and fiscal discipline. Our leaders in Washington nearly doubled the national debt, expanded the reach of entitlement programs they once promised to reform, and they were complicit with government bailouts and buyouts that felt like a taxpayer sell-out to most red blooded Americans.

Looking back on it now, what happened is clear: power became the end to some in our party, not the means, and spending became the vehicle to preserve that power.

And somewhere along the way, the Party that once stood as a bold champion for reform and fiscal restraint quickly became the embodiment of business as usual.

Fellow Republicans, our party is in the political wilderness for a reason -- we earned it. And we will never earn the right to govern again unless we acknowledge our Party's past failures and make a clean break from them.

Now, that doesn't begin to excuse what's happening in Washington now.

President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have taken the fiscal

mess they inherited to irresponsible new heights. Right now, our

leaders are gambling America's future on the bet that big government will bring us back.

And they aren't alone. Washington, D.C. does not have a corner on wrong choices, on poor leadership, on moving us in the wrong direction. It's happening in Denver too, and it starts with our Governor.

Friends, Bill Ritter is a likeable and decent man. But as Governor, Bill Ritter has been weak and ineffective; timid and short sighted when the times demand clear thinking and tough decision making . And in those few instances when he has led, Governor Ritter has moved Colorado in the wrong direction.

Increasing taxes and expensive new fees that have hit families and businesses hard – all in the middle of a painful recession – that's the wrong direction for Colorado.

Pushing uncompromising drilling restrictions that have killed jobs and reduced energy production at a time that Colorado and America need more of both – that's the wrong direction for Colorado.

Repealing spending limits and veering Colorado onto the same reckless fiscal path that has sunk California into political and economic chaos – that's the wrong direction for Colorado.

Sitting quietly in the Governor's mansion while Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate push radical proposals to repeal the death penalty, throw out the Electoral College, make Colorado vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits – that's not leadership for Colorado.

Squandering precious political capital by igniting old fights between business and labor – that's the wrong direction for Colorado.

Ronald Reagan applied a measuring stick for another weak and ineffective executive exactly thirty years ago. He asked a question then, and we ask it now: are we better off than we were three years ago, are we better off for the administration of Bill Ritter?

That's right…we are not.

When Bill Ritter was elected Governor, the economy was soaring, Coloradans were working, personal income was growing, our energy sector was humming, and State government was awash in budget surpluses.

That was three years ago.

Today it's all very different.

In the midst of a painful national recession, not only has this Governor failed to chart a path to recovery, his policies and priorities have actually made a bad economic situation dramatically worse.

Unemployment is the highest in about a generation. Colorado's personal income ranking is falling faster than most States in the nation. Energy production is in a tailspin. Families and businesses are struggling to pay for a litany of new taxes and fees. And reckless government spending when economic times were good has left Colorado's budget spread thin and incapable of funding key priorities.

No, Colorado is not better off than it was three years ago, and our Governor takes a big share of the responsibility.

Which harkens another quote from the Gipper, modified for modern times:

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose yours.

A recovery is when Bill Ritter loses his.

 

 

Over the next months, we are going to wage a spirited and energetic campaign focused on just that – a Colorado recovery that begins with reclaiming the Governor's office.

And when I say energetic, I mean it. Over the next sixteen months this campaign is going to work as hard and as smart as any Colorado campaign ever has.

In the next few days alone, we are going to touch all the corners of this state, meeting with citizens, making phone calls, hosting business roundtables and town hall meetings. We're going to reach out to Coloradans on Twitter and Facebook and beginning tomorrow afternoon, we're even going to pound some shoe leather too.

I'm not sure if a gubernatorial candidate has ever gone door to door, but we are, starting tomorrow in Jefferson County, and we're going to do that across Colorado in the weeks and months ahead.

That's because we know that it's going to take hard work to get Colorado turned around, and no one -- no one --is going to work harder than we are.

Will you join me?

 

More important than the methods of this campaign, is our message, and our message will be bold.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of Republicans shrinking in the corner, afraid to make a well-formed and passionate case for our brand of disciplined, efficient government.

That doesn't mean we should be harsh and judgmental in our approach.

We shouldn't be. There's nothing that the public dislikes more than a "holier than thou" routine from a politician.

But that does mean we should have the courage to stand for our convictions, to make a bold case for our values, our vision, our version of how government should work -- and where it has no business.

When the Republican Party is at its best, we are a strong Party, a Party of ideas, a Party of leadership, a Party with a plan for a better tomorrow.

And make no mistake about it, when Republicans run this way, Republicans win.

We are going to run a race with guts; we are going to make our case to the people of Colorado with conviction; and we are going to win.

And we're going to win – not for winning's sake – but for the higher purpose of getting this State moving again.

 

 

So let's look ahead to the upcoming campaign for a moment or two.

In the short term, of course, we know we are going to have a spirited debate within the Republican Party about the future of our Party – and more important, about the future of Colorado.

This will be a contest between friends. It will be a debate between neighbors.

It is a campaign with passionate advocates who carry strong opinions, so the debate will be robust. I have no doubt.

And that's OK with me.

The opportunity to serve as the Governor of Colorado is an incredible privilege that carries tremendous responsibility, and the Office

should be earned. As 2009 becomes 2010, let's make this primary a

debate about ideas, about past performance, and most important of all, a debate about who carries the best vision, leadership and a real plan to get Colorado moving forward again.

And when the debate within the Republican Party ends, we will still be neighbors and we will still be friends. And we will still agree on far more than we don't. For these reasons, we will put the disagreements of the primary season behind us, and we will focus on the struggle that matters most: winning in 2010 so that we can move Colorado forward.

So Republicans, let's focus on what matters most during this primary

season: how we would govern if given the chance.

You have a right to know how your nominee will lead, and I plan to tell you.

As recent elections have proven, the voters expect this much. It turns out that the public is unimpressed by those who claim it's their turn for a higher office. That's because these offices belong to the people. They are not owed to anyone.

And besides, if political leadership were a simple measurement of who's punched the political clock longest, Teddy Kennedy would be the leader of the free world.

And the same is true of course for Democrats and Independent voters in the general election. They have a right to know how each candidate will lead. If the State of Colorado has learned anything over the last three years, it is that vague campaign promises without a plan

and some leadership to back it up aren't worth much. Bill Ritter ran

on a vague set of commitments that he called the Colorado Promise back in 2006. Three years later, the only thing this Governor has to show for his Colorado Promise is a broken economy, a budget in turmoil and no real plan to move Colorado forward.

Taking our campaign past the usual sound bites and into the tough business of governing is important for another reason as well. At the state level, Republicans haven't done a particularly good job of explaining how we would govern if given the chance. Even though it is important for us to say "No" to the conventional tax and spend programs proposed by those in power now, we need to tell the voters of Colorado what "Yes" looks like.

And we're going to lead by example. We're going to lay out our economic development strategy in real detail. We're going to describe a new approach to meeting the State's infrastructure needs. We will be crystal clear about our plan to improve the quality of our schools and our plan for keeping college within reach for Colorado's kids.

And we will outline a vision for expanded production of coal and wind, solar and, of course, getting the natural gas industry back on its feet too.

We will talk about the critical functions of government – how to keep communities safe from the worst actors in society. And we will talk about quality of life – smart ways to conserve Colorado's natural beauty and wide open spaces.

Ours will be a campaign with its eyes wide open. A campaign that talks clearly about the real challenges we face, and points boldly to real solutions. A campaign with the courage to describe how we will lead.

 

Over the last several months I've had a lot of people ask me, why would you want to run for Governor? And it's not an unfair question.

Politics has gotten pretty rough, and besides, life in Grand Junction comes pretty naturally. This is our home, and it always will be. As much as I relish fighting the good fight in the public arena, I'd just as soon be at Chase's ball game over at Monument Little League.

And yet, the call to serve a cause bigger than personal convenience has never burned stronger. You feel it and we do too.

We see the direction of our country and our state and we are concerned.

We look back over the last decade on a Republican Party that lost its compass, forgot its purpose, squandered its moment and we grow frustrated.

We see an economy in decline, a school system that fails too many, and a government that can't balance its budget or live within its means and frustration becomes motivation.

We see the stakes of the here and now for ourselves, and our children and their children too and motivation becomes a call to action.

A call to serve.

A call to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and get back in the fight for the future of this great State of ours.

Now is no time for summer soldiers, or sunshine patriots. Now is no time to despair about losses of the past or to hunker down or throw in the towel.

Those of us who believe in freedom and free enterprise, we've got to stay in the fight.

Those of us who believe government exists to protect liberty, not to tell people how to live their lives, we've got to get back in the fight.

Those of us who believe taxes should be low and education standards should be high, we've got to get back in the fight.

Those of us who believe we need to produce more energy in Colorado so we're less dependent on foreign tyrants for our energy, we've got to get back in the fight.

Those of us who are tired of both political parties promising big but delivering small, those of us who are tired of spending deficits no matter which party authored them, we've got to get back into the fight.

Those of us who think higher education and roads and public safety are critically important – and that government should find a way to fund these priorities without asking for a new tax or fee increase every year – we've got to get back in the fight.

Those of us who see the direction of this state and know we can do better, those of us who are ready for a new day in Colorado… now more than ever we've got to stay in the fight for the future of this great State of ours.

 

It's a fight we can.

 

Together, it's a fight we will win.

 

Thank you for coming. May God Bless the Great State of Colorado.

Governor Ritter – some Q & A

Trying something new - you can listen to the first 45 minutes of the interview here. (It was a 90 minute tape but apparently that's at the slow speed and I used the high speed so it ended at 45 minutes.) Nothing major in the last 15 minutes, that was just about his trips to Argentina and staying at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C. (For the totally oblivious – just kidding.) The meeting was Governor Ritter, Evan Dryer, & me.

This was a lot different from most of my previous interviews. I figure the first one is to let an individual talk and they drive the conversation. But for the 2^nd one, I came in with a bunch of questions and tried to get full answers to those questions. So here's my first effort at an interview I tried to drive.

Governor Ritter consistently answered my questions. He never avoided them nor did he try to change the subject. And an interview scheduled for ½ hour ran a bit over an hour when he had to call it quits. So being hit with a bunch of questions, he did not use the excuse of times up to cut & run. I think this is one of Ritter's most commendable features, he will talk to the points brought up and discuss them in full.

We started on what he called the "grocery bill" and his naming of it is interesting. Clearly to him unemployment for locked out workers, with this bill, was totally wrapped up in the negotiations between the unions and the grocery chains. He first discussed how Governors historically did not pre-announce if they would veto bills and that he has been more open on his inclinations than Bill Owens was. Then he discussed how the house bill that took effect in 2010 was what he was looking for. He didn't say he would have signed it, but he delivered the impression he would have.

He also pointed out the Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill with a July 2009 effect because "they knew" he would then veto it. This is a very credible argument as the Republicans this session have spent most of it trying to just honk anything & everything up. And they've never been accused of being strong supporters of the unions. So very interesting argument that people knew the 2009 date was a deal killer.

With all that said, I asked if he told the legislators that 2009 was a deal killer and he was very clear that his staff had delivered a strong message that it needed to be later, but also that he did not have a direct conversation on this specific topic. Bottom line I think is that the hints from his office were not communicated well and that problem could be primarily due to either end of that discussion. But he also should have sat down with the leadership and told them point blank make it 2010 or it's dead.

We discussed jobs in different ways many times over the hour. Green energy clearly drives the Governor. He started in about how we have jobs coming here because we are the center for green energy and how from Vestas to NREL to a number of others he listed these are quality jobs that are being created now. He clearly views this as a wonderful two-fer in that we are becoming the center for green energy in the country and those companies are providing jobs. Based on what he said I think making us the center for green energy is Ritter's primary driver and the new jobs is a wonderful additional benefit. And long term that is the right priority.

He also discussed a 5 year FICA credit for companies that create 20 or more jobs where the average wage is greater than the state average. This is a really interesting approach as the credit is substantial, is tied to the employee's pay, and exists only as long as the new jobs do. He claims that several companies have located new operations here specifically because of this new law. And as an executive I can say that this is something that would influence what we do. On the flip side, they might want to get the word out as I had never heard of this before – and I'm one of the targets for this.

I started a discussion of newspapers by saying that the daily paper has been the core of investigative journalism in this country for the last 100 years with the rest taking their lead from the work of the daily papers. I then asked him what does he think will happen when the daily papers are no more in 3 – 5 years. He talked first about how he & his wife read the paper every day – but his kids don't. He sees first hand that the web is the only source for the upcoming generations and sees that this is inevitable. He also said that he thinks the blogs are now driving what the daily papers cover (yo Wall Street Journal – Pulitzer Prize story for you – small software company in Boulder with incredible product – call me).

He then talked at some length of the lack of accountability and civility in the blogosphere. What was interesting is the way he talked about accountability he was talking about people being accountable for what they write, not bloggers holding politicians accountable for what they do. It makes sense from his perspective as he (and every other politician) gets hammered mercilessly, and mostly by anonymous posters. (My feeling is toughen up – this is no different from the broadsheets at the founding of our country.)

He did talk about the worry of who is going to cover school board meetings and the many other items like that. He pointed out that school boards have more impact on our lives than most other parts of the government, yet could fall off the radar with the death of newspapers. He does think that out of the blogging community we will see enough reporting done that we will have some good coverage. He also clearly now views talking to bloggers as a key part of getting his message out to the community so I think it's a safe bet he will be communicating more and more on the web (can Ritter's Twitter be far off?).

We discussed small business. He started off on this saying the biggest need he had heard from small businesses was that without credit they were dead. And credit has disappeared. My company does not need credit, but we run up substantial Visa bills between Google and ordering hardware & software – and with reduced limits we have to pay the cards off every 2 weeks instead of monthly. For a company that needs credit to bring in the materials they use to create what they sell this would kill them. So he has put a major effort into making sure credit is available. Critically important work.

I then got the standard "small business is important to us" spiel. So I asked him why the State is unwilling to consider purchasing from small high-tech companies in the state. Governor Ritter was insistent that the State absolutely was open to buying from local companies. When I brought up several specific situations he continued to insist that while a few departments might not be perfect on this issue, that the state was very open on this.

This is where as a blogger I have an advantage over a reporter. With a reporter they can pass on he said/she said but they don't know what's really going on. But I could (and did) tell the governor that I have found the OIT unwilling to even look at our company. Not that they looked and didn't like it, but totally unwilling to look. (If Xcel operated like OIT they would tell us they had all this lovely infrastructure for coal power plants and so would not even look at wind or solar.) Even with this Ritter insisted that the state is open to local small business. I think he does truly believe this and is simply unaware of how his administration is handling this. He might want to talk to Greg Lopez.

This then took us to the topic of CBMS as there are some local companies that tried to step up and offer solutions to this. And of course were told to go away. Ritter agreed that it was a complete disaster and they had gotten Deloitte to fix it. Ritter's view is that for a system this big with a problem this big, they needed a major player like Deloitte. My opinion is they have a total clusterfuck because they decided to create a gigantic system using a major consulting service. I don't expect a governor to understand who to hire to get quality software delivered on time and under budget, but he should have people working for him that do. My guess is Ritter is going to be surprised when this is still an issue 4 years from now. But he thinks they have it under control.

I then brought up the criticism that he tends to go for the safe plays and never goes for the hail mary pass. But with the economy in the toilet, it pretty much demands that we go for some major changes. Ok, if you want to annoy Bill Ritter, tell him he doesn't go for the impossible goals. This got a passionate response. His main point was that you don't get "Las Vegas lights" from him, you just get results. He brought up FASTER, the doubling of alternative energy requirements (and including the REAs in the requirement), and the new education measurement & 5 years of high school legislation.

And you know something… He has a point. We would always like to see more, but there have been some substantial efforts. And I think the education one is the one that actually was the furthest reach and it will have the most impact. Evan Dryer afterwards also brought up the Oil & Gas rules and A-58 which are two other examples. And the fact that A-58 lost makes it an even better example because it's one where he tried to do something that was very difficult and failed. If he always succeeded then he is being too careful.

So we (because I agreed with this criticism) should maybe change it from Ritter never tries for the big win to we would prefer that he did so on a few other issues. Governor Ritter also made the very legit point that substantial change is a multi-year effort to get passed and then takes many years to effect the system. He definitely takes the long view on applying his efforts. So if all of his work over his two terms works out well and bears fruit, then the next Governor will be able to take credit for all the wonderful improvements then starting to bear fruit.

This discussion led to the work on improving K-12 education. We discussed first how the mother's educational level was the driving force in how a child does not just in school, but health, success, life. He had seen the same thing during his time in Africa. He then launched in to a discussion about the state's efforts to get adults GEDs, etc to improve that educational level.

He then discussed the efforts presently under way which is primarily pre-school for all that need it and full day kindergarten. Both of these efforts should (he said will) improve our graduation rates. He also discussed the new systems coming on to measure improvement by student, school, and teacher. And he then discussed how this will show if a teacher is effective. And if a teacher is not effective, and he stressed that this measurement is one tool but not the total story, but if a teacher is not getting the job done – then they need to be let go. This is major because measurement is a key step but if schools cannot take corrective action, it doesn't do much good.

So there you go. My big take-aways are that to him the blow-up concerning vetoing the union bills is over. That green energy & education are the two issues (we discussed) that have his passion and major efforts. That he is concentrating on doing what the state needs with an emphasis on jobs today and big picture long-term. And finally, that he's not going to show-boat.

And here's the thing, while he's not perfect, this is someone who is concentrating on governing well as opposed to campaigning well. Quiet competence is always under appreciated.