Governor Ritter shows his re-election colors

May 9, 7:52 PMFrisco Conservative ExaminerDavid Leach

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Frisco Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

For the governor of Colorado, playing both sides of a contentious issue has been par for the course in his first term as the CEO of the Centennial state, but his most recent "position" concerning whether or not the death penalty should be abolished have shown the colors of a man obviously positioning himself for another run at the office he holds.

As the 2009 legislative session was winding down, there was an effort by the Democrat-controlled legislature to abolish the death penalty. Supposedly, this move was being made to redirect an expected $1.5 million savings to the investigation of cold-case homicides. However, since the sponsor of this bill (Paul Weissmann, D-Louisville) has been consistently on record as being opposed to it, there is considerable evidence that this "savings" approach was nothing more than a back-door attempt at pushing through unpopular legislation.

As you would expect in a situation where there is the potential of negative consequences, Democrats looked to their party's governor for some indication as to how he would vote if the legislation made it to his desk. True to form, the governor was silent during the whole process. So, in the end, and based on past experiences with Ritter on issues like the union balloting question, Democrats were unwilling to take the risk of supporting legislation the governor might not.

And let there be no doubt, this issue has political implications.In a statement he made to the legislature before the vote, Senate President Peter Groff encouraged his fellow Democrats to pass it, even if it costs them their office:

We will say we did what's right because that's what we're supposed to do. This is our opportunity, yet again, to actually be the moral voice in this state, to actually rise above the politics of the moment, to rise to that one moment where we say, 'You know what, if this costs us the majority, so be it. If this costs us our seats, our titles, our gavels, so be it, because this is the right thing to do.'

While his contention that the Democrats are the "moral voice" concerning this issue is a bit of a stretch, his plea to his constituents left no doubt that political consequences were to be expected if they passed this legislation. It was for this reason that they looked to their leader for direction when everything was on the line. Sadly for them, it would not be found.

In a news conference on Thursday, Governor Ritter stated that he did indeed have a position on the issue, he just wasn't going to share it with  the voters. He claims that this allows both sides of the issue to be heard.

Baloney!

Besides leaving his party high and dry, Ritter's vacillating approach to leadership has clearly demonstrated that this is a man who will take any position to get himself elected or re-elected, even when that position is to avoid taking any position at all.

Governor Ritter considers that a listening skill. I call it showing his re-election colors.

For more info: Nancy Pelosi's outrage is phony, Obama's healthcare reform is bad news for seniors, Arlen Specter a RINO no more, Gitmo prisoners? Dump 'em on Europe, Should Janet Napolitano resign?