Like Ritter, Udall earlier this year received an editorial slap from the Denver Post for co-sponsoring the inaccurately-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). On the floor of the Congress, Udall expressed the difficulties his conscience had with supporting a bill to take away workers' secret ballot election rights, yet he went ahead and supported the bill at the behest of union bosses anyway. All those contributions from union PACs can speak really loud.
Bringing it all together, fellow Colorado blogger Karl Maher gives us some insights into the Democrats' "protection racket," speculating that Big Labor may have persuaded Ritter to take the heat off Udall:
So why would Ritter give employees collective bargaining rights without going through the Legislature?
Maybe it's because the legislative debate would've put the issue on the state's front pages for a couple of weeks. It might have drawn Udall into the debate, reminding people that he co-sponsored the EFCA and that he's taking gobs of money from union PACs. Maybe the party, feeling the need to score one for Labor, prevailed on Ritter to take one for the team and spare the state further debate that might embarrass Udall.
That might give Ritter and the Democrats more credit for strategic thought than they deserve. But really, I can't figure out any other reason Ritter would do such a thing.
Is Karl right on this point? I don't know. But the fact that his argument is plausible reminds us how wary we should be of Udall's homage to Big Labor and his disconnect from the average independent Colorado voter.
No comments:
Post a Comment