This week, we have Charles Ashby, Denver Bureau Chief for the Pueblo Chieftain. Mr. Ashby has served as the Bureau Chief for the Chieftain since June and before that covered the state legislature for the Durango Herald, for seven sessions (since 1998). From 1997 to 2002 he also covered Colorado legal matters and the legislature for the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
In his career in Colorado , Mr. Ashby has written for newspapers in Boulder, Colorado Springs, Montrose, Longmont and Sterling. He has also worked for newspapers in Virginia, Nebraska and Florida.
Mr. Ashby will be answering your questions throughout the day, so read through the first 11 questions and then ask your own in the COMMENTS section. We do ask that you follow a couple of quick rules:
1. Please be courteous. You may disagree with something Mr. Ashby has written here or in the newspaper. But if you can't do so in a respectful way your comments will be removed. Mr. Ashby is gracious enough to take time out of his day (made all the busier with the impending wrap-up of legislature) to answer your questions, and the least we can all do is be respectful towards him.
2. If you want to discuss something Mr. Ashby has said but do not want to ask another question, please comment in the OPEN THREAD above. We'd like to keep the COMMENTS section in this post reserved for questions and answers to make it easier for everyone to track both.
So, on with the show:
1. Let’s start with the 2005 legislative session, since they are about to wrap things up for the year. How would you grade the Democrats and Republicans and why?
I don't like to "grade" lawmakers or their parties. It's too subjective no matter who's doing it. Sorry. I know that's a boring answer, but I wouldn't opine on such things, nor would I write a story allowing any single group doing the same. Everyone has an agenda, and that would taint the grades. Democrats would say that Republicans have been whiners and inconsistent in their objections to various measures, and are living in denial about losing the majority in the Legislature. Republicans would say that Democrats have been heavy-handed and disingenuous, and have not borne the mantle of leadership as well as they should.
As a reporter, I start with a simple premise about all lawmakers. That their first duty is to serve the people of their districts, and balance that with what's best for the entire state. Unfortunately, all too often they show that they're so worried about getting re-elected to do the jobs they've been hired to do. Not all of them are like that, mind you, but re-election is always in their minds, first for themselves, second for their parties.
2. What surprised you about the 2005 legislative session?
When the legislative session began in January, I had high hopes that things would be different this year. Not because I cared that the Democrats had taken control in the November elections, but just because I thought it would be different. As Sean Connery said in Red October, "A revolution from time to time can be a good thing."
Trouble was, I forgot that the more things change, the more they stay the same. While it was weird seeing the once minority leaders standing up there on the podium in the House and Senate at first, politics, as it always does, quickly took over, and suddenly it made no difference who was in charge.
Did that surprise me? Yeah, I suppose it did. Though, looking back, it was a dumb expectation, and I should have known better.
3. Looking ahead to 2006, what do you expect to see from Democrats and Republicans when they re-convene next January? Where do you think each party needs to make adjustments in order be positioned best in November 2006?
You keep asking me to opine, but you know I won't. Besides, if I had that good a crystal ball, I wouldn't be doing this. What they do next year depends on so many things, not the least of which is what the voters do with the referenda on this November's ballot. Next session will be an election year, and a crucial one for both sides. The Democrats will, obviously, want to retain control in the Legislature. The Republicans will want to take it back. As a result, the politics will be high, and votes for and against bills will be used for and against lawmakers in their re-election campaigns. Whether the Legislature has any extra money from Referendum C will play a big role in what is introduced, and how legislators vote.
4. What campaign or campaigns impressed you the most in 2004 and why?
Campaigns don't impress me. People do.
Ken Salazar impressed me with his knowledge of the issues; Pete Coors impressed me with his willingness to enter a fray that he clearly didn't care for. What didn't impress me was how the presidential candidates tried to pull both men into aiding their national campaigns rather than the race for the Senate. Sure, President Bush and John Kerry said they supported their parties' pick for Colorado senator, but their real interest was to win votes for themselves and clearly used that as much as they could. On election night, Bush's state campaign was understandably jubilant when the president won re-election and partied off by themselves while the GOP candidate's supporters were busy crying in their Coors beers.
Meanwhile, the rest of the Republican Party realized that it had been sidetracked and didn't focus as much as it should have on state races, resulting in the Democrats winning a majority in the Legislature. Some of that was their own fault, due to cockiness that it could never happen, particularly in the Colorado House.
What may impress me in 2006 are what both parties -- or, more precisely, their candidates -- will do. A lot will be on the line then, and the governor's seat is only one of them. Expect to see an off-presidential year race like you've never seen. I suspect at times it will seem like a presidential race, because everything will be on the line. There will be a lot of out-of-state money and a lot of in-state fighting, first in the primaries, and then with the 527s.
5. You covered the race for CD-3. What’s your nutshell analysis of what happened and why John Salazar was elected?
Actually, I didn't cover the CD-3 race. The prime reporter for my paper on that story was in Pueblo, in the district. I oversaw statewide races: the U.S. Senate, ballot questions and the presidential races when they were in town.
Having said that, however, I can say that Salazar's win was entirely about Referendum A. Salazar opposed it, Greg Walcher supported it (despite his backtracking about only campaigning for it a few times). He was one of, if not the, front man for the governor on the plan to issue up to $2 billion in bonds to pay for unspecified water projects. The measure was defeated in every county of the state, including the Front Range counties that Western Slope and Southern Colorado voters believed it was meant to benefit. Western Slope and Southern Colorado officials jaws literally dropped when they realized the ballot question had been defeated.
There were, of course, a couple of other factors in the Salazar-Walcher race, not the least of which was a lot of out-of-state money entering the race (and the recent redistricting that helped even the difference between registered Democrats and Republicans in the district). Walcher also had a string of bad PR while he was still executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, not the least of which was a controversial contract designed to help the department reduce costs (which actually did the opposite) Since then, of course, we haven't seen the so-call cost-saving measures that contract was supposed to bring about. And lastly, Salazar had name recognition from his more well-known then attorney general brother.
6. What makes campaigning different on the Western Slope and in Southern Colorado compared to Metro Denver? Can you think of any examples of Denver-area candidates who transitioned particularly well in those areas, and those who didn’t? What happened?
If it will fly in Peoria, it will fly anywhere, or so they say. Not true for the Western Slope or Southern Colorado. Both feel like they are the red-headed stepchildren to the Front Range(from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins).
The biggest issue for both regions is water. To borrow a line from Frank Herbert's "Dune," "Water is Life." Water is everything. Water is economic development. Water is agriculture. Water is Mom and apple pie. The Front Range drools when it thinks of all that water in those regions that they don't have. When Front Range water interests work a deal to take more water from them, it is seen as just one more example of how the Front Range cares only about itself and not the state as a whole. (Sorry Jerd Smith. To these people, the water wars have not ended, not by a long shot.)
Can I think of an example of a Denver candidate who played well out there. Frankly, no. It usually works the other way. Roy Romer of Lamar. Ken Salazar of the San Luis Valley. Even Jane Norton of Grand Junction.
7. What are the issues that are always at the forefront on the Western Slope, and what new issues to do you anticipate cropping up in 2006? What do you anticipate will be the dominant issue(s) for these voters in 2006?
See Question #6. And there are no new issues, just a rehashing of the old. As far as the rest, my crystal ball still isn't working.
8. What are the issues that are always at the forefront in Southern Colorado, and what new issues to do you anticipate cropping up in 2006? What do you anticipate will be the dominant issue(s) for these voters in 2006?
See Question #7.
9. We spent a lot of time last week talking about third party candidates, first with the Green Party Chair and then with the Libertarian Party Chair. What do you think it is going to take for a third-party candidate (and not an Independent) to win a state house or senate seat in Colorado?
More votes than the other guys.
10. The media has long been accused of having a liberal bias, even as more conservative news outlets (such as Fox News) have gained more readers and viewers. Do you think media coverage in Colorado leans one way or the other? Do you think that perception is different outside of Metro Denver?
The media has also been accused of bringing about the Black Plague, the Great Flood and low-fat cheese. What's your point? That we should be more like Fox News to gain more readers and viewers? And does the fact that we don't tell you anything? That maybe we aren't in the business of gaining more readers and viewers as everyone thinks we are?
Newspaper circulations for the major papers in Colorado (outside of Denver) have remained virtually the same for the past 20 years despite the increase in population. Maybe we are just interested in reporting the news as opposed to making money. I'm a newspaperman, not a newspaper salesman. Read my reports, don't read my reports. It's up to you. I report the news, I don't report people's perception of it.
Perception may be everything in politics, but it is meaningless in the news. So, no, I don't think media coverage in Colorado leans one way or the other, only people's perception of it. One day you're a hero to a source, the next day you're public enemy No. 1. (That's when I know I've done my job right.) Is the perception different outside Denver? Why would it be? People are people. Period.
11. You’ve covered politics and the legislature in Colorado for a long time. What’s the strangest thing you’ve ever seen?
A political blog like this one, and how popular it seems to be. I mean, who really cares who has the biggest hair in the Legislature? Beyond that, not much. It's often said in the Colorado Legislature that nothing ever dies (including former lawmakers and some press people). Here, they don't kill a bill per se. They PI it, or postpone it indefinitely. Bill after bill, day after day, session after session, the same issues come and go and come back again. Sounds like the definition of insanity (or maybe it's a willingness to being a witness to it year after year that's truly insane).
Some of these Legislators you must get to know fairly well. You're probably privy to a lot of stuff that might skew anyone's perspective - so, at the end of the day - how do your still report on folks you might still call a "friend" once you've entered the bar of the Warwick?
Posted by: thinkin | May 09, 2005 at 10:14 PM
Thanks for taking our questions.
What's your assessment of all the Hickenlooper hoopla this site and others are pushing? Is he just another Front Range candidate who will not translate in other parts of the state? Or are the numbers that Ciruli is pushing about Hickenlooper being the most popular politiican statewide really an accurate picture?
Thanks.
Posted by: Alfalfa | May 10, 2005 at 08:55 AM
Isgar vs Larson? Is that really going to happen or does one of the two have a trick up their sleeve?
Who will be John Salazar's next opponent? And, why isn't there clear jokeying for that nomination (like there was for CD 7 on the Dem side 2 years ago)?
Posted by: george | May 10, 2005 at 08:56 AM
They are not my friends and they know it. While that doesn't mean I can't be friendly, they all know that I am a reporter always. They also know that I am capable of talking to them as a "friend" without necessarily putting everything in the paper, such as how often they go to the bathroom. Why is that? Because most of that stuff isn't news, and therefore not worth reporting.
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 10:18 AM
On the Hick, while I may work for the Pueblo Chieftain, I live in Denver. That means that Hickenlooper is my mayor like he is everyone else's in Denver. That said. you should know that mayors in Colorado like elsewhere in the nation don't generally do well in statewide races. All this "hoopla" over the Hick is just wishful thinking. For a man who's only won one race, it's silly to think he suddenly can win statewide. Even he knows that.
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 10:21 AM
Larson has made it clear that he intends to run for the Colorado Senate. No surprise there. He's had that thought for a while. Can be beat Isgar. Very possibly. Both are very popular in their districts, particularly in the Durango area where most of the votes are. While there are far more Republicans in the district than Democrats or unaffiliated, all of them generally vote moderately. Dem or GOP doesn't matter. Former Sen. Jim Dyer, D-Durango, had that position before Isgar and was just as unbeatable as he was while he served 12 years in the House there.
But the real question is, is Isgar going to run for re-election. While I don't cover that district anymore, I've heard that he's considering a bid for county commissioner. Part of that may be due to his distast in having to run a campaign. Unlike Larson, he's not a campaigner. Don't get me wrong. He knows his stuff, and he can be a good legislator when he wants to be.
I'm sure the Dem Party is pressuring him to run because if he doesn't, it's a good bet the Senate will go GOP. That race may be the decider in the 18-17 flip-flop switch in the state Senate.
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 10:28 AM
I appreciate your comments about being a newspaperman and your focus being on reporting the news, circulation/sales be damned.
I'd be interested in knowing your take on whether this mentality reachews outside of the newsroom and into the corporate offices of a newspaper. I'm not familiar with the ownership structure of your paper, but it seems more and more media outlets are being owned by corporations who do not have a history in the news business.
I'd never begrudge anyone wanting to make a profit in business. But, ultimately, in these types of situations, who has the upper hand- the corporate interest looking at the bottom-line or the news interest looking to report the news? Do you think this has any sort of affect on what happens in the newsroom?
Thank you.
Posted by: interested | May 10, 2005 at 01:32 PM
It depends on the corporation.
Mostly, some of them have what an old-school reporter like me would call a quirky sense of what should be in a newspaper or on the air. Much of it calls for more fluff, features, lifestyle kind of stuff. But while that doesn't usually impact the hard news stories, it does take space away from it, which has its own impact.
Does it have an impact in the newsroom? Of course. Journalists actually believe in what they are doing, that they have a "social responsibility" to tell their readers, viewers, listeners the actual news, and not on some sidebar story about what someone thinks about the news or how to cope with it.
The paper I work for is family owned. One of the last in the country. As such, it's focus in decidedly local, emphatically community based. The news in the Chieftain is not slanted to support the paper's editorial position on any subject. As a result, it still is one of the most profitable papers in the country. Its "saturation" in its readership area, all of Southern and Southeastern Colorado, is about 80 percent. That means that about 8 in 10 households in the region buy the paper. Most newspapers these days are lucky to be at 30 or 40 percent (down from about 50 percent 20 years ago). The Chieftain's numbers are that way because of a sense of community, and because of good community journalism that you'll find in the paper. I know. All this sounds like an ad for the Chieftain. It isn't meant to be, but your questions about corporate journalism is one of the reasons why I work for them and not, say, Gannett.
That corporation is one of the most profitable in the country, in part because years ago it was business savvy enough to expand into markets that had no competition.
Nowadays, however, it's papers have become somewhat formulaic. The news doesn't work that way. News happens when news happens. We don't pick it. For example, people complain that the news is always so negative. While that's more of a perception than a reality, even when it's true ask yourself, is it the news that negative or just the events of that day?
Corporations are in it for the money, no doubt about that. But they also know that newspapers make money because they offer the news. And that they dare not mess with.
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Charles, you spend a lot of time inside the glass with the legislators watching them get lobbied both inside the chamber and out. Who/what interest groups do you think are the most effective in lobbying the members both inside the chamber and out?
Posted by: curious | May 10, 2005 at 03:36 PM
There's no right answer to that.
There are several different groups lobbying several different lawmakers on several different issues. How effective they are depends on the group, the legislator and the issue.
Sorry. I know that's not the answer you want, but maybe this will help.
The one group that is, almost always, effective are the people themselves.
This year, for example, the Legislature was about to pass a bill that would have required the Colorado Transportation Commission to set tolling rates for any multi-county tolling enterprise. (Current law requires each county to do that.) The legislation, which passed the House viturally unnoticed by everyone, was meant for a private company that is talking about building a massive toll road from Pueblo to Fort Collins.
By the time the bill came up for its first hearing in the Senate, a groundswell of public opposition emerged and descended on the Capitol the likes of which no one here has ever seen. Literally hundreds (about 800 according to Colorado State Patrol officials) packed the committee room, hallways and several other committee rooms to speak out against it.
Generally speaking, most committee hearings on bills are ... well ... nearly worthless. That's because lawmakers usually already have made up their minds how to vote.
This tremendous outpouring of people (not counting the hundreds of calls and emails they received) left the committee with little choice but to kill the bill.
So to answer your question:
People Power. It works every time.
Why? Because those people are the voters. An no one has more power then they do!
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 03:48 PM
You are right, not the answer I was looking for, but very politically correct. Although, I have to say that I have been to plenty of hearings where many people have been present, not several hundred, but still enough to fill the room and they still didn't get what they were looking for.
Posted by: curious | May 10, 2005 at 03:57 PM
Of the legislators you got to know well and work with extensively from Durango and Pueblo, which ones intrigue you the most? Who is the most charasmatic? Who is the least self-serving? Who works the hardest? Who demands the most repect? Who is most underappreciated?
Posted by: Timmy | May 10, 2005 at 04:20 PM
Who will be John Salazar's next opponent? And, why isn't there clear jokeying for that nomination (like there was for CD 7 on the Dem side 2 years ago)?
Posted by: George | May 10, 2005 at 04:21 PM
Sorry. You asked a general question and expect me to give a specific answer, which is not possible.
Try this then:
Get a lot of money.
There are several ways you can do this. Get backing from a corporation or industry if you can find one that agrees with your specific issue.
If not, form a PAC, register it with the Secretary of State and start collecting donations from people who agree with you.
Take that money and give it to a lawmaker in the form of campaign donations.
Take some more of that money and give it to other lawmakers of the same party that best agrees with your specific issue.
Then, call the lawmaker(s) from time to time to tell them what you think. Take them to lunch or dinner or hold special fund-raising events for them. (And do the same for their political friends).
Propose a law to them, but be sure to do all the background on it first. Tell them why it's needed and tell them what the opposition will say, and propose counter arguments. In short, do all the work for them.
Then, register as a lobbyist and come to the Capitol everyday and stump for your idea. Go to other lawmakers and get them to promise to support the bill.
Then, when the measure comes up in committee some other poor fool who hasn't done all this will complain about coming to testify with a bunch of other people only to see that everyone on the committee already has made up their minds.
That's how laws are made.
Didn't you know?
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 04:38 PM
Saying who is the most charasmatic, or least self-serving or works the hardest is a lot like grading lawmakers, which I've said I won't do.
They each have their own unique traits, both good and bad depending on one's definition of good and bad.
Truth is, I have to play a little politics, too. If I opine and say who is the most charasmatic, for example, I will quarantee you that others will come to me to complain that I didn't pick them.
Sound silly? Well, welcome back to high school, 'cause that's what this place can be like.
And on John Salazar's next opponent? I saw your question earlier and ignored it.
How am I suppost to know that when his opponent doesn't know it yet either?
Maybe no one will run against him. Maybe Scott McInnis will change his mind and run for the seat again. Maybe Salazar will decide he doesn't like sharing a small apartment with his little brother in D.C. and won't run again. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Besides, 95 percent of politics is behind closed doors. I'm willing to bet that there's clear jockying for the GOP nomnation against Salazar right now, we just don't know it yet.
Posted by: charles ashby | May 10, 2005 at 04:57 PM
article: working poor uninsured
Can you explain the last paragraph that half of the uninsured in the state were non-hispanic whites....
Who/what are non-hispanic whites???
Posted by: Clayton | September 21, 2007 at 09:38 AM
article: working poor uninsured
Can you explain the last paragraph that half of the uninsured in the state were non-hispanic whites....
Who/what are non-hispanic whites???
Posted by: Clayton | September 21, 2007 at 09:38 AM
I suppose at moments it will seem like a presidential battle, because everything will be on the series. There will be a lot of out of state income and a lot of in state dealing with, first in the primaries.
Posted by: rashlanutrefuit.co.il/ | December 01, 2011 at 01:40 PM