Colorado Politics, News and Inside Information: Excuse me, Mr. Ritter?

Colorado Pols in the News

Colorado Pols Q&A's

_

« Thursday Open Thread | Main | Steamboat Hick »

Excuse me, Mr. Ritter?

Gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter joined us for a Q&A on June 23rd, as you know.

He had quite a bit to say on the subject of abortion, if you remember, and that has earned him the ire of a large section of what the other Dem prospects like to call "their base."

Several emails on this have been forwarded around party insiders in the last two weeks, all featuring this quote from our Q&A:

I am pro-life as a matter of personal faith. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the decision of whether or not to legalize abortions reverts to the states, and if the Colorado Legislature passes a bill banning abortion, I will sign the bill...

It's tough to imagine the folks over at NARAL or Planned Parenthood not being beside themselves at that. To be fair, though, whoever originally sent this is pulling the quote somewhat out of its context:

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the decision of whether or not to legalize abortions reverts to the states, and if the Colorado Legislature passes a bill banning abortion, I will sign the bill only if it provides protections for women who are victims of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. However, should the Colorado Legislature pass a complete ban without these protections, I would veto that bill. That said, Roe V. Wade is the law of the land and abortions are legal. As Governor I will act in the same way I did as DA. I will respect the law as it stands...

A principled statement from a man of principle? Or an unacceptable position from any Democratic candidate? We report, you decide.

Posted by Colorado Pols on July 07, 2005 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

Comments

With all due respect to Mr. Ritter, who I believe is a principled and a good man, that statement took him out of the running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Posted by: Dem base | July 07, 2005 at 01:06 PM

That is what you get long answers, people paraphrase it to sound worse. Which is normal.

And offtopic, but Bridges is the only announced gov candidate who hasn't done a Q&A here yet. Is that due to his end like I imagine?

Posted by: peterco | July 07, 2005 at 01:14 PM

I think the Democrats need to seriously look at including Pro-Life candidates in the Party in the same way the GOP welcomes Pro-Choice politicians.

That said, you don't win a Democratic Primary by running to the right, especially on abortion.

Goodbye Mr. Ritter, we hardly knew ya...

Posted by: yellowdogdem | July 07, 2005 at 02:30 PM

Bridges told me he was discussing Q&A timing with the Dead Govs - is that true?

I think we should all be thanking Ritter for being up-front and completely honest about his position. Ritter is only out if Bush continues the rightward march of the judicial system; I think Democrats are willing to look at people with principled stands like Ritter's provided they don't think Roe is in danger.

Posted by: Phoenix Rising | July 07, 2005 at 02:50 PM

It is a sad day when party dogma overrides common sense. The Democratic party should be THE party that has room for a wider range of perspectives on abortion than the Republicans. Let those narrow-minded right-wingers alienate anyone with a slightly different opinion. And besides, when did abortion become a burning issue.

Posted by: Lane R | July 07, 2005 at 04:17 PM

I think abortion is the "litmus test" for the left because it represents the right of doctor-patient priviledge and science over faith-based rulings. It's a simple issue and is somewhat indicative of where faith fits in with judicial restraint. Logically, it's a good test to weed out those who put faith above evidence and stare decis. Politically, it's supported by a majority of Americans, and that can't be all bad for the politicians.

I'm not quite in Ritter's camp on this one, but if I was female, I'd be pro-life for myself at least. Reid and others express my view well: safe, legal, and RARE.

Posted by: Phoenix Rising | July 07, 2005 at 06:41 PM

I applaud Colorado Pols, for pointing out that the quote was specifically pulled out of context to distort Mr. Ritter’s position. Additionally, in answer to this question he said:

This is one of the most contentious and divisive issues in politics today. As Governor, I would work, as I have throughout my career, to find common ground. I think we can all agree that abortion should be rare. I think we can also all agree that we are not living up to our responsibility to our children to provide immunizations, quality education and access to health care. There is so much work to be done in these areas, that we should not allow wedge politics to cloud our vision.

In the end it comes down to the question do the Dems want 4 more years of Owens’ policies, or do they want to rally behind Ritter, the most electable, principled candidate in the field.

Posted by: Think Electability | July 07, 2005 at 09:22 PM

Out of context?
Please -- the altar boy is stating what used to be the church's position -- abortion only in cases of rape incest or life of Mother -- the reality is that poor women -- not the daughters of Hogan & Hartson Altar Boys will have to go maybe 1000 miles to get a safe abortion if this guy gets his way -- no nothing was taken out of context

Posted by: Vladimir | July 08, 2005 at 09:44 AM

once again, vladimir, you are polluting this sight with anti-catholic bigotry. i understand how fun it is to use brash, confrontational language, but when you use religious terms like "altar boy" as derogatory insults, you are a bigot.

Posted by: catholic dem | July 08, 2005 at 11:02 AM

Catholic Dem - What's up with the Jefferson Economic Council email address???

Posted by: Jefferson Economic Council | July 08, 2005 at 11:11 AM

I agree with the comment above that the party needs to be more inclusive. Who thinks abortion is a good thing? Even those of us who support a woman's right to choose think that abortion should be used sparingly. Bill Ritter is not advocating that it be outlawed. He's saying on a personl level he opposes it. More importantly to this voter, he is not pandering to what he knows the party wants to hear and what would help get him nominated. He's telling the truth. Isn't that what the type person we want in political office? What about all of the other values we should be concerned with? What's with the litmus test?

Posted by: Norm Brisson | July 08, 2005 at 08:52 PM

It is interesting and fascinating to watch some of the exchanges here; it seems that we have some very well intention people trying to make honest straightforward points. However the hypocrisy is very evident. If someone were to use the word “spic”, “wetback” or some other names that put Hispanics in a negative light there would be an outrage. However religion is no longer a sacred cow; unless it is a religion that is in vogue. If you claim to be agnostic etc you are still making a statement of your religious beliefs. Then these statements become your de-facto religious beliefs. If others are wondering where I am getting my facts; I use Webster as my source. This hypocrisy enables people to use slang names and make statements about those who carry different religious beliefs as if they are not educated or intelligent enough to develop their own opinions. Both of these actions are still an act of bigotry; yet in our society they are tolerated.

I do realize that most of the people who view this site are left leaning; however that is why I struggle if not get frustrated when statements like these are tolerated. If I as a white man were to call someone a “wetback”; others would refer to me as a racist. However attacks are allowed on candidate’s religious beliefs, a protected class, is tolerated if not encouraged. I wish that people would talk about the facts or use theories on how this might impact the race and not attack due to religious beliefs.

One last point on this topic, if you feel comfortable in allowing attacks on religious beliefs than the same person better feel comfortable on allowing “wetback”, “spic” in everyday conversation. Because bigotry is still bigotry no matter the form it takes.

Posted by: James Foy | July 09, 2005 at 09:10 AM

While I am a Democrat and I consider myself in the "pro-life camp," since when did this issue take over the Democratic party?

I find it refreshing -- and all Coloradoans should be thankful -- that we finally have a candidate who is willing to clearly delineate his positions and views and then stand firm and tall (regardless of whether we personally agree with those views). This is in stark contrast to the all too common standard politician, who changes positions with the political winds. Good for you, Mr. Ritter.

Posted by: Tim | July 11, 2005 at 08:16 AM

James:
One of these things is not like the other....

The difference is between what is inherent and what is acquired.

A belief system is acquired. One's genetic heritage, origin of birth and sex are immutable.

One can be criticized for an acquired belief system on the theory that perhaps one could be persuaded to assimilate new information and acquire a different view. But, regardless of criticism one cannot undue DNA nor rewrite history as to origin of birth.

Try to exercise some critical thinking skills.

Posted by: too_much_green_tea | July 11, 2005 at 09:53 AM

Bigot:

One fanatically devoted to ones own group, religion, race or politics and intolerant of those whose differ

If you think that there has not been religious bigotry please study Judaism. Yes, not everyone who believes this faith is Jewish by birth. I would ask you to study the history of the United States, period. I also would be willing to bet if anyone used Altar Boy in the workplace, they would be fired and or sued. I do not see any difference based on the definition how racial bigotry and religious bigotry are that dramatically different.

Please think and use some discretion about any postings that might be misleading.

Posted by: James Foy | July 11, 2005 at 12:32 PM