Elephants Won't Budge, Donkeys Learning Slowly

If we've learned anything from the 2005 legislative session, which closes up shop in about two weeks, it's in observing the lessons that both parties seemed to have learned, with mixed success.

The Democrats have learned, as we posted earlier, that it is harder to toe the center line than they might have thought. Democrats have been fairly even on what they set out to do this session, but they at times stayed so close to center that they angered some traditional friends, such as Labor Unions. It will be interesting to see if they change that strategy in 2006 and throw a few bones towards olds pals like Labor and the Teachers Union. They did manage to work on several bills regarding gay rights, but they also chose business over families on several occassions, which is a non-traditional move.

Democrats also showed in the TABOR negotiations something that voters said they were looking for in 2004: the ability to get things done and solve some the state's problems. They can even trumpet the fact that they reached a compromise --  a compromise that favors Governor Bill Owens more than it does Democrats -- but a compromise nonetheless.

And as for the Republicans, whose stunning defeat in 2004 seemingly sent them a message that they should stop spending 90% of their time with special interests...well, they are what they are. We learned about the Colorado GOP, as George Bernard Shaw once said, that "The only thing man has learned from history is that man has learned nothing from history."

Take two recent bills, for example, that touch on traditional right-wing messages that didn't need to stay so traditionally right-wing.

The state Senate gave final approval on Monday, by a straight party-line vote, to Senate Bill 28. The bill, if signed by Governor Bill Owens, prohibits employers from discriminating against gays and lesbians. Republicans unanimously voted against it, choosing instead to rail against "the abomination of sexuality," as Republican Senator Ron Teck put it. Senator Jim Dyer stuck to his oft-repeated line that it is "anti-business," which if you read the paper frequently you get the feeling that he just walks around like a legislative robot saying "anti-business, anti-business."

As an aside, can't this guy get quoted for any other reason? Do reporters even interview him anymore, or do they just play back the tape from another interview? (that was a joke. Save the "you're a bunch of Democratic whores" comments for another blog).

Anyway, Republicans have already been arguing about prohibiting gay marriage, which is in many ways a different argument. It's really a different argument when they make fools of themselves by calling gay marriage a gateway to bestiality and a threat to our schools (there is a logical argument that can be made against gay marriage, and that ain't it, fellas), but we digress.

The point is this: arguing against gay marriage is different than arguing in favor of discrimination in the workplace. Most Coloradans probably expect Republicans to attack gay marriage whenever they can, and a good percentage oppose gay marriage. But the attack sounds different when it has to do with outright discrimination.

Let's use a bestiality analogy just for the sake of being able to get more hits at Colorado Pols from people searching for 'bestiality' on Google. If you have a guy, we'll call him Jack, who really wants to marry his parakeet and wants the legislature to do something to make it legal...well, that's an interesting proposition (no pun intended) and not one that is terribly tough to form a logical argument against.

But if Jack is being harassed at his office and gets fired because word gets out about his passionate love for his parakeet...well, that's a little different. He may or may not have the right to marry his parakeet, but only a truly heartless person would say that it is okay for him to be discriminated against at work, and perhaps fired because of it.

If you're going to make this argument, you have to be willing to argue that it is okay for kids to bully other kids, because whose right is it to tell them who they can and can't bully! Discrimination in the workplace is discrimination in the workplace, no matter how you slice it. It's not about whether gay people are going to hell. It's about discrimination. You can't argue that it's okay to discriminate in certain cases unless you're willing to be labeled as someone who is in favor of discrimination.

Republicans nevertheless stuck to their guns on this one, voting down any bill that even has the word 'gay' somewhere inside the text. The Democrats will say that workplace discrimination is wrong, period. But to Republicans, since those being discriminated against are gays and lesbians, well...that's okay, then. And they're okay with that message in 2006?

This vote may help them with their base, but they had that base anyway. What it will do, if Democrats get smart in their messaging, is come back to haunt them later. "Republicans vote in favor of workplace discrimination." If you put that in a piece of direct mail, you'd have a decent attack ad that would force Republicans to say, "Well, yeah, but..." Whenever you vote in favor of discrimination, it doesn't look good any way you fry it. And one more thing: is it pro-business to allow discrimination?

Okay, so maybe we went a little far with that last one, but we don't mean to attack Republicans themselves -- we're saying that they aren't using their heads when they're voting for some of this legislation and their political strategy could use some work.

At the very least, let your Republican colleagues in more moderate districts vote 'yes' on the anti-discrimination bill so that they don't get raked over the coals for it later. You weren't going to defeat the bill anyway, so why make everyone go down with the ship? They can still claim to be against gay marriage without having to be in favor of discrimination in the workplace.

But the elephants have the same couple of die-hard messages in their head that won't allow them to even consider whether the bill makes sense; it's what killed them in the 2004 election, and it's going to kill them again in 2006 if they don't start to learn that lesson.

Let's look at one more example: Senate Bill 21. This bill was originally written to require businesses to give their employers up to 40 hours of unpaid leave each year so that they could attend their children's school functions or other activities. The leave could only be taken in 2-hour blocks and with advance notice, but Republicans still fought against it hard with the same "anti-business, anti-business" chants.

Republicans succeeded in their arguments enough that Democratic State Representative Terrance Carroll, the bill's original sponsor, changed the language so that only 15 hours -- not 40 -- would be allowed. He also exempted companies with fewer than 50 employees, strengthed the two-hour limit requirement, and required two-weeks advance notice.

Nevertheless...according to The Rocky Mountain News: Opponents, including officials of the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, worry that the bill will ruin the flexible arrangements that most bosses offer, and might lead to fewer people being hired because of the extra cost.

We're no business experts, so maybe 15 hours over one year really would cause irreperable damage to a company. But if you're going to take that argument to everyday voters, all it sounds like is: "business is more important than families." We're not saying that's a fair understanding, but that's what you're going to get. You could argue against 40 hours of leave. Arguing against this watered-down version would be another example of refusing to move out of the way of the train.

Others wondered if the 15 hours actually would motivate uninvolved parents to attend their kids' parent-teacher conferences, or whether they'd use all the hours to watch the sporting events.

This argument is particularly L-A-M-E. Might some people take advantage of it? Probably. Do people take advantage of broken parking meters and park there anyway? Probably. Do you think some business executives take advantage of legislative-provided tax loopholes for personal gain? Probably. So what's the solution? Outlaw parking meters and business tax breaks? Just because some people might take advantage of them? Do those people outnumber the people who would do it right and really benefit from the bill?

You can't legislate probably; you have to vote on the best intentions of the bill. Someone will always take advantage of whatever you create. That's how it is. Don't use this argument as though this would be the only time it might happen; nobody, especially Joe Voter, is going to believe a word of it.

This bill has a few votes to go, so Republicans still have a chance to actually take credit for a family-friendly piece of legislation that also protects businesses. They twisted arms and got Carroll to lessen the requirements, but if they don't vote for the bill now it will be an incredibly foolish move. Republicans would be able to say, "We thought the original bill put too much of a strain on small businesses, but we recognize that we need to do more to help out working families. So we reached a compromise." Republicans come out smelling like roses, and Democrats can no longer attack them on this issue in 2006.

What do you want to bet they vote it down anyway? If they do, they're handing Democrats a winning issue on a platter. "When faced with a choice to help families see their kids or to help businesses improve their bottom line, Republicans chose business. Democrats support working families who just want a little extra time to take part in their child's life." Fair? Maybe not, but it would be a terribly effective ad. The only Republican response is to say, "That's true, however..." but you've lost them at "that's true."

So, will Republicans get behind it? Maybe not. According to the News: The bill has already passed the Senate, but must survive two more House votes before being sent to the governor. Carroll predicted Owens would veto it. "CACI (Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry) will have his ear," Carroll said.

Republicans still haven't learned their lesson. They insist that everything is black and white when it comes to their core issues, and they're so blinded by those issues that they can't see the political opportunities that emerge from time to time. If it hurts business in any way, it must be wrong. If it has anything to do with homosexuality, it must be wrong. If it has the word 'tax' in it, then it must be bad. Their refusal to see the gray area cost them dearly in 2004, and if they don't soon learn the same lesson they should have learned this session, they'll be back in the minority again in 2006.

So, what have we learned in 2005? We've learned that Democrats are learning, but they aren't there yet. And we've learned that Republicans haven't learned anything at all. If politics is a game, many of the Republicans are refusing to put on a jersey. Too bad, because you can't score from the bench.

Comments

[GOPer]

as a diehard R i hate to agree with this, but you make some valid points. there's definitely room to compromise that republicans don't seem to want to be a part of. you're definitely going to get some bad comments for this one, but i can't fault you for making a solid argument.

[J-Lo]

If you're trying to get more hits for "bestiality," you're probably going to want to spell it right.

[Amelia]

Your argument is way too rational. Gay bashing gets votes--arguably it won the presidency for Bush. Haven't noticed that the political party calling themselves the "people of faith" are losing power--at least not on a national level (appreciate you are talking about local, not national politics). There is some sort of pervasive and deep-seated discomfort if not loathing for homosexuality. It's a hot button like no other. Sure hope you're right. First they came for the queers . . .

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

My wife and I have been hiring and firing people for more than 30 years, and we've never discriminated against anyone. We hire smart, honest, nice people who are good communicators and can do the job. And we're a very family friendly company, I think.

Having said that, I think you're over the top.I think your post suggests you have had little managerial and entrepreneurial experience and you don't know what you're talking about.

Even though I'm pro-gay marriage and hate gay bashing by Republicans and think employers who aren't family friendly are mismanaged, I doubt that the Rs' positions are going to cost individual legislators votes. The last thing small businesses need are more employment regulations, which often are abused by workers more than by employers, imho. If the Ds want the votes of small businesses, they're not proving it in this session.

As others have noted, Rs won more votes in legislative races last year than Ds, but their votes were in the wrong place in a year when the presidential elections boosted D turnouts. There's a good chance Rs will come back to power in this state in '06 based on simple demographics. Only a major shift to Ds by independents and moderates will keep the Ds in power, and they're not doing much to win those votes, imho. Too union, too socialistic and hardly toeing the center.

Just my reading at the momement. Often wrong, always certain.

Don

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

I blogged against HB03-1164 here:

http://www.businessword.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mark_hillman_bill_rigs_market_for_anthem_blue_cross/

My lead graph said:

"The Mark Hilllman bill (or, the Anthem protection act of 2003), HB03-1164, is a form of socialism and anti-competition legislation because the legislature is being used by the insurance industry to rig the market in its favor. A truly free market gives all participants a level playing field---fair regulation, equal access to product price and feature information and full accountability for integrity and the lack thereof. My recommendation is that the General Assembly find a way to make passing HB03-1164 impossible so a better solution can be devised, including doing nothing. As I’ve said before, I think trying to fix the health care market at the state level is impossible. Just doing something to be doing something is the wrong way to go. Understand: Anthem wants this bill as a hedge against a proposed association health plan bill going through Congress, which would allow associations to challenge its market in Colorado. Blue Cross is the leading opponent of association health plan legislation, and I oppose it, too."

Mark wouldn't listen. He apparently had made up his mind and wouldn't look at the facts of health care economics.

[Alva Adams]

Oops. We will change the spelling.

[Demento]

Thoughtful, and not as over the top as some R's will say it is. To them all I can say is, "Salazar/Coors; Salazar/Walcher; Buescher/Bjorkland; and those results are from the western side of the hump. Penry won because of his McInnis ties and he was up against a touchy-feely lefty with no experience. If you want some attention from the moderates and Indies you better find some more Vanderhoofs, Loves and Aspinalls (Today he would be an R.).

[gokart]

Penry won because he was a qualified candidate and the best guy for the job. Plus from what I have heard he has done a pretty damn good job so far. Walcher lost because he has less charisma than a table. With the Coors race he unfortunately lost not only because of a lack of support from the "great governor" of Colorado but there were some definite problems with the people who worked on his race.

[Achilles]

Penry won because he is qualified and knows what issues matter to his constituency. I love that the D's believe that the R's only win because of their connection to other popular R's when their own candidate in the 3rd CD ran on the coattails of his brother. Walcher, while lacking personality, is not any less dynamic than the person representing the 3rd CD today.

[yqemfxaaddk]

tTvnJT xeftvrspbhla, [url=http://kdburwurevwb.com/]kdburwurevwb[/url], [link=http://vbensfgrqcya.com/]vbensfgrqcya[/link], http://eilxvobourlu.com/