Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm pleased to have with me in studio my friend
Jeff Bridges.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Uh, not that Jeff Bridge is Shan and the other
one the other one, But that's okay.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
I'm sure you get that joke eighteen times every single day.
And Jeff is in a Democratic Party leadership in the
state Senate chairman chairman right of the Joint Budget Committee
and Canada for State treasurer if I if I remember correctly?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Right? Is that all correct?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
That's correct? Yes?
Speaker 4 (00:28):
And I love that I have my own walk on
music for the show. Every time I come on, We've
got uh just dropped in to see what condition my
condition was it?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
What I'm doing today.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Shannon is a huge fan.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
So I can't wait for you to have your star
on the Hollywood Walker Fame.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
I think my name is already there, exactly right.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, I should note, by the way, for folks who
don't know Jeff, it is very interesting dude, and you
have a Masters in divinity.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
I do, yeah, from Harvard yep.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
And we won't talk about Harvard right now, but.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Let's just give it, give me a moment just so, folks,
because I don't want to get we're gonna get very political,
and I know stuff will get You know, I got
a lot of folks who don't love everything Democrats did
this year, So I think it would be good to
turn you into a human being first before we turn
you into a politician.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
So tell me this is a secret. All politicians are
actually people. I know we don't seem like at a time,
but we're actually all just human beings doing our best.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Don't you think at some point, all right, as long
as you're gonna drag me into this, sure, this.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Is a serious question now, And don't you think.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
At some points there are some politicians who become so
highly motivated by their own personal interests, their own desire
for the next election, their own fealty to some constituency.
And this is on either side. I'm not pointing in
Democrats that they actually kind of lose what you might
(01:57):
have thought, or you might think, since you know them personally,
that that they lose their principles.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Or lose even their humanity, even temporarily.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
So I think there's a difference between being pulled away
from your principles and trying to do what's politically expedient
for the next election. Whatever that is, and I think
there's a lot of examples of that in Congress today
on both sides of the aisle, and losing your humanity right,
And and this goes back to the question you were
going to ask about divinity school, like recognizing that spark
of the divine that exists in all of us. And
(02:29):
what I found it was it was amazing.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
You know.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
We moved into the Landmark and there was a guy
there that I had talked to a number of times
and and was friendly, and then out of nowhere I
got it. I found out that he's hosting an event
for my opponent, and and he had never talked to
me about it, and he had never said anything. And
there's just sort of this like, oh, I guess he
(02:52):
doesn't have to treat me like a person, right, I guess.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
But he knew who you were, and.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
He knew you were running course, and was he supporting
a hem in a primary or a Republican in a general.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Who was a Democratic primary?
Speaker 4 (03:02):
Okay, but there was there were so many moments for
him to say, hey, you know, I think a great
you know, I'm supporting your opponent.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Yeah, I'm having an event, And I.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Sort of get this notice that the community in the
Landmark is going over to this event for my opponent,
and I'm like, what is what's happening here? And it's
just it showed me that too many people don't think
about us as human beings, right, and they think that
the general rules of polite society, where you know you're
a person and I treat you with respect and dignity,
just don't apply the folks who are in politics.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
I actually that's part of what's broken in our political
system today.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
And I do think I do think that my wording
of this as losing your humanity was intentionally a little
bit too far, But there is something that gets lost,
and you can see it. For example, I'll pick on
Republicans for a minute. In Congress right now, probably the
vast majority of Republicans know that this budget is.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Terrible, although probably for all the different.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Reasons than why you think it's a bad budget, Like
probably pretty bad budget for probably probably really irresponsible spending
going on in Washington.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Oh good.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
We're usually obligated in Colorado to pass a balance budget.
So I have been on the budget committee three years,
and every year I have passed a balance budget. Well,
your House, it's usually required to, but it's still a
great talking point. I think that, especially for a state
like ours, that's the right way to go. And whatever
you think about ongoing debt at a federal level, there
is a certain amount that is healthy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
The amount we have.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
We are almost at a point where we will be
borrowing money more money to pay interest on our debt
than we're actually spending.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah way, And yet if you.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Were in Congress, especially if you are a relatively young
member of Congress trying to make your way up, you
would vote for every single spending increase, probably that leadership
wanted you to, just as Republicans right now are going
along with this budget that blows up the deficit and.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Debt, even though they all campaigned against it.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
So it's not exactly losing your humanity, but it's it's
it's losing something. And I think think that happens maybe
a little bit less at the state legislature than in Congress,
but it still happens.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
So when I was running for office the first time,
I had a great conversation with Casey Becker, who ended
up being the Speaker of the House here in Colorado
a few years later, and she said, when you're thinking
about a vote, the sort of three things to think about,
and in this order are your conscience, your constituents, and
your caucus. And if your conscience calls you to vote
a particularly way, you've got to follow that. If your
(05:25):
constituents have a particularly very strong opinion about a bill,
you got to go that way. And then sort of
third and finally is caucus. And I would actually expand
that to sort of a broader view, the broader political perspective.
Right there are bills that pass unanimously in the Senate.
They're on the consent calendar, and every now and then
you get a few members of both both parties going
(05:46):
up and saying, I'd like to be marked to no
on this bill. But generally these are bills that no
one's really opposed to. I think on the whole, some
of them on the consent calendar make a huge difference
for the people of Colorado. Many of them are really
playing around the edges. They're not the kinds of bills
that you would talk about on this show. But sometimes
they're just good government fixes and sometimes they're just lame
and and it's like am I am I really going
(06:08):
to go up there and vote no on a colleagues's
bill just because I think it's like, not great.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah, it doesn't do any harm, right, and it doesn't
bother me.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
That much either, But I think, Okay, so Becker said
conscience something in caucus and caucus and you see that
on somebody.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
I get that, but but it's wrong t more.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
The reason that it's wrong is that there should be
another C word that comes first to care for us,
I know, before all of those others.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Constitution.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Sure, if it's not constitutional, it doesn't matter if your
caucus wants it. It doesn't matter if your conscience wants it.
And you know, Democrats hope, let me let me finish
my sense. So Democrats don't even usually don't even pretend
to care about that, so at least you're not hypocrites.
Republicans pretend to care about it and then just go
(07:05):
ahead with any unconstitutional stuff they want or Donald Trump wants,
So they're hypocrites.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
But I think the Constitution has to.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Come first, and nobody pays enough attention to it completely.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
A great constitution has to come first. We are advised
by the folks who draft the bills in the legislature,
so we don't. Actually, we sort of come up with
the ideas, and we can come up in cases with
language for our bills. But there's a whole team of
lawyers who don't practice law outside the building. Their entire
job is drafting laws, drafting bills in the legislature, and
(07:40):
they have very strong opinions about what is constitutional and
what is not constitutional. And if we're looking at a
bill that they think even approaches that line, they will
let us know, and they will let generally they will
let other people know as well. So it's sort of
like constitutionality is assumed. And I think we can have
a nice discussion about some of the gun bills this
year and whether or not you and your listeners believe
(08:02):
that they aligned the US Constitution.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
In fact, I got too let's listener text on that already,
but still give me. Give me twenty nine seconds, because
I like prime numbers on why you got a divinity
to a divinity degree from Harvard and how you think
it changed you as a person or or as a politician.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
If I can do a little more than twenty nine seconds.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Okay, So I grew up agnostic, sort of just not
sure about what was true, what wasn't. I saw a
lot of people really into this Christianity thing. I had
some friends in high school who took me to their
you know, their their Sunday school sort of thing on Wednesdays.
I asked questions that frankly, Sunday school people are not
equipped to answer. So I sort of I had this
(08:48):
journey of questioning for many, many years, and one year
I found myself in the National Cathedral in Washington, d C.
Which is beautiful, one of the most beautiful places in
the world. There was a woman presiding at the service.
It was an even song service, so it was a
choral service, it was sung, it was a social justice message.
It was one of the most beautiful moments of my life.
(09:11):
And it to me, it felt like, oh, there's something
here that that really resonates with what I've heard about
this Jesus guy my whole life, which really did not
resonate with a lot of the conservative Christians that I
had heard from, you know, recognizing the humanity in each other,
love your neighbor, you know, regardless of their state of sin,
and and there was something that drew me in and
(09:32):
I'm like, what is this. It's an episcopal church. And
I know if you knew this, the cathedral is a yeah,
I used to live right, that's great. It's just gorgeous.
They have a moon rock and a window there. It's
very cool. So they so I looked into it more
and I joined the Episcopal Church, went through catechumenic, which
is like training when you become an Episcopalian later in life.
And the first class that we had was what is sin?
(09:54):
I was like, oh, here we go, here's where I leave. Yeah,
And the answers we came to was anything that gets
in the way of the relationships that God wants you
to have with yourself, with other people, with creation, and
with God. And I thought that's fantastic, right, that is
so contextual. It is it's not this like lists of like,
you know, do this, this, this, this and this. It
(10:15):
really recognizes that the world is messy and doing the
right thing at times takes discernment.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
It takes a real.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Ability to figure out all the different things that are
that are going on and play into that. And I
actually think going to Divinity School and spending three years
asking questions about justice and right and wrong was the
perfect background for going into the legislature.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
That's what we do.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Right, the lawyers sort of take the laws we pass
and it's like math with words. What are the facts
of the case, what's the law? What's the outcome? Right
in the legislature we say, what's the world we want
to have?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
What?
Speaker 4 (10:47):
What do we think the right role of government is?
What do we think, you know, the society around us
should be? And how do we get there? And I
think that is a question of justice. And so my
divinity background, I think works perfectly with the work that
I've been doing.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
I wanted to ask Jeff that question because I don't
think most listeners think of politicians generally having that kind
of conversation, and maybe in particular, again I'm not trying
to be sarcastic, probably don't think of Democrats as having
that kind of conversation.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
So there are two members of the legislature with the
Master's of Divinity degree, we're both Democrats.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Who's the other one?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Basenekker in the House And if you're just joining, we're
talking with State Senator Jeff Bridges. What's your district number?
I should know because I'm in it.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Twenty six. It's okay, No one knows, No one knows
the district number.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
If you even know who you're a state representative senator
is you're a very unique human being. You know the
district number. I don't even know the numbers of my colleagues.
All right, you're so.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
So.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Jeff is in leadership and the Democratic Party in the
State Senate.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
He's chairman of the Joint Budget Committee. Are you chairman
next year?
Speaker 1 (11:49):
No?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
We flipped.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
So the number the House Senate goes back and forth,
Joint House and Senate Committee.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
And Jeff is also a candidate for State treasurer. And
hopefully we'll get to that in a bit, but for
the moment, I want to kind of keep health network
and treasure stuff separately. So let's talk about a couple
of bills and a couple of constitutional things. Let's talk
about Senate Bill three, which is the obvious infringement on
the Second Amendment that you guys passed and pull Us signed,
(12:16):
even though I told him in a private conversation, don't
sign this nonsense.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Why do you think it's constitutional?
Speaker 4 (12:27):
So, if you look at the history of rights in
this country, just because you have a right to something
doesn't mean that as an unfettered right, And especially if
exercising that right leads to violence, there is a constitutionally
allowed limit on that so speech. For instance, I quote
this and the trolls online lose their minds. But Oliver
(12:49):
Wendel Holmes said that you essentially can't shout fire in
a crowded theater, right, because that leads to panic. People
rush the doors, they get trampled. If it's not true.
You can't say that in that context if it leads
to that panic. Right, So there is that there's a
case where there is an immediate negative consequence for exercising
that right, and that is constitutionally an accepted limit on
(13:12):
that right.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Like you can't incite to violence, right, you can't.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
You can't.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
The fire in the crowded theater thing is very misunderstood,
and we talked about it last week, I know, and anyway,
keep going, we can.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
But the principle though, and the reality is that anything
that incites violence is an accepted limit on free speech
in this country. So you know, you look at at
free exercise of religion, there's there's all sorts of constitutional
history on where are the lines on these? The default is, yes,
you can do this, but the then you have to
(13:44):
look around and say what's the impact of this, and
and for cenebil three where it ended up. And I
think the piece that that you dislike the most, and
that that I hear from folks that they disliked the most,
is not necessarily the training. It's the check by the sheriff.
And what I hear every time there is a mass shooting,
every time, what I hear from Republicans is this is
(14:05):
a behavioral health issue. It's not guns, it's behavioral health. Well,
what we've done in this bill is put that behavioral
health check in Right, it's the same check that we
have currently for concealed carry, and.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
It is now the check that we will have for But.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
It it doesn't do anything determined by dr Do you really.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Think it's gonna catch I mean, most of these people
who do this stuff appear normal when they're buying a gun.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
I think there are some folks that have not appeared normal.
I think the Aurora Theater shooter there was some real
red flags there wellun intended. Yeah, that that probably would
have kept him from gaining access to the weapons.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
But how does this change that, right?
Speaker 1 (14:44):
I mean, maybe red flag could change that or something,
but I don't.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I don't see I think this is.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
I understand that Jared thinks that the training piece is
really important and you should have to get training, and
by the way, I think you should get training. But
there's a big difference between you should do something and
the government is going to force you to do something,
and otherwise you won't be able to exercise a constitutional right.
I think the best argument from your side is we're
not really blocking the constitutional right because you could just
go buy a different gun rather than the gun in
(15:14):
this category. I think that's your strongest argument, and I
still don't think it's a great one.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
I actually think that for the vast majority of gun owners,
this bill will not change their ability to access the
weapons that they would like to purchase. The bill is
introduced would have eliminated wholesale any sort of semi automatic
weapon that had a detachable magazine. So that is a
(15:38):
very much different bill from where we ended up, which
is if you want that semi automatic rifle. And I
think it can be interpreted to include a certain class
of handguns as well. But listen to your conversation with
Paul Undine. I do think there is a class of
handguns that fall into this. But if you want that
semi automatic that you go get the okay from the sheriff,
the same okay that you get when you want to
(16:00):
conceal carry permit, and then you take a class, you
still have access to those and unless there's really something
going on, I could be wrong about this, but it
doesn't really functionally change the ability.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
I don't think my sheriff can deny me a concealed
carry permit unless I've been charged or convicted of something,
or unless maybe.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
There's a red flag violation.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Under this thing, a sheriff doesn't really have to have.
There doesn't have to be a conviction, as I read
the law, the sheriff can just say I think his
past behavior makes him a little too risky and I'm
not going to let him get it, and that bothers me.
All right, let's keep going. You know, we have so much,
so much to do. I wonder if you could maybe
come back time. Well, mate, could you stick through a
break and do one more segment? We still have a
(16:39):
few minutes in this one. So one of the things
that really got my listeners very upset was House Bill
thirteen twelve, and this originally would have had, for example,
is so if you have a child who's born female
and wants to identify a male, the original version of
the bill would have said that, Let's say there were
parents who were getting divorced and there was a custody fight,
(17:00):
were a parent who insisted on referring to the child
by in this case, her biological gender, that would be
held against the parents in custody hearings. So that's been
taken out. My question for you is why does any
politician think that's okay to put in And is there
(17:20):
some point at which you think your own Democratic colleagues
are nuts?
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Because I don't think you're crazy.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I think you're relatively moderate as today's Democrats go. But
you got to be pretty nuts to put that in there.
How does that even get in a bill that could pass?
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Yeah, it's important to know.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
On this particular bill, those particular provisions were opposed and
removed from the bill, in large part due to requests
from the LGBTQ plus community here in the state. So
One Colorado represents that community largely at the Capitol, and
they had serious concerns with this bill as introduced. They
(18:01):
didn't outrite a posed, but they were in an amend position.
So there's sort of different positions you can take on
a bill. Amend is essentially we don't like the bill
as it is, and we don't support it as it is,
and we need changes. And so you know, the leading
LGBTQ plus group in this state said this bill is
not acceptable as it So I think that's important context here, right.
(18:25):
It may be introduced, there may be members of the
legislature that support it in that way, but even one
Colorado change I get.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
That, So, okay, go ahead, we have about a minute here.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
So there's a lot of people that introduced a lot
of bills in the state. There was one two years
ago that was you have to pay a fee and
register all of your pets fifteen bucks for goldfish.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Some things like that.
Speaker 4 (18:45):
So just because bills are introduced doesn't mean that they
have support from the majority of legislators or even the
majority of Democrats. And I think this bill is a
great example of something that was introduced in the Cadillac
version for the sponsor and amended down to something more
like a Chevy. I think it gets the job done
the way it is, but it does not have the
sort of same form and a lot of the same
(19:05):
regulations is in Okay.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think that's a good place to leave it, and
then we'll come back to it in the next break
in the next segment, because you said it gets the
job done. So my question for you at the top
of the next segment will be what is the job
that it is trying to get done?
Speaker 2 (19:20):
And then we're going to talk a little bit about I.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Want to do two more things with you in the
next segment, which will be shorter than this one, was
taking a look at next year's budget and running for treasurer.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Okay,
I'm pleased to have with me in studio my friend
Jeff Bridges.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Uh, not that Jeff Bridge is Shan and the other
one the other one, But that's okay.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
I'm sure you get that joke eighteen times every single day.
And Jeff is in a Democratic Party leadership in the
state Senate chairman chairman right of the Joint Budget Committee
and Canada for State treasurer if I if I remember correctly?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Right? Is that all correct?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
That's correct? Yes?
Speaker 4 (00:28):
And I love that I have my own walk on
music for the show. Every time I come on, We've
got uh just dropped in to see what condition my
condition was it?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
What I'm doing today.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Shannon is a huge fan.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
So I can't wait for you to have your star
on the Hollywood Walker Fame.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
I think my name is already there, exactly right.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, I should note, by the way, for folks who
don't know Jeff, it is very interesting dude, and you
have a Masters in divinity.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
I do, yeah, from Harvard yep.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
And we won't talk about Harvard right now, but.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Let's just give it, give me a moment just so, folks,
because I don't want to get we're gonna get very political,
and I know stuff will get You know, I got
a lot of folks who don't love everything Democrats did
this year, So I think it would be good to
turn you into a human being first before we turn
you into a politician.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
So tell me this is a secret. All politicians are
actually people. I know we don't seem like at a time,
but we're actually all just human beings doing our best.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Don't you think at some point, all right, as long
as you're gonna drag me into this, sure, this.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Is a serious question now, And don't you think.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
At some points there are some politicians who become so
highly motivated by their own personal interests, their own desire
for the next election, their own fealty to some constituency.
And this is on either side. I'm not pointing in
Democrats that they actually kind of lose what you might
(01:57):
have thought, or you might think, since you know them personally,
that that they lose their principles.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Or lose even their humanity, even temporarily.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
So I think there's a difference between being pulled away
from your principles and trying to do what's politically expedient
for the next election. Whatever that is, and I think
there's a lot of examples of that in Congress today
on both sides of the aisle, and losing your humanity right,
And and this goes back to the question you were
going to ask about divinity school, like recognizing that spark
of the divine that exists in all of us. And
(02:29):
what I found it was it was amazing.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
You know.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
We moved into the Landmark and there was a guy
there that I had talked to a number of times
and and was friendly, and then out of nowhere I
got it. I found out that he's hosting an event
for my opponent, and and he had never talked to
me about it, and he had never said anything. And
there's just sort of this like, oh, I guess he
(02:52):
doesn't have to treat me like a person, right, I guess.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
But he knew who you were, and.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
He knew you were running course, and was he supporting
a hem in a primary or a Republican in a general.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Who was a Democratic primary?
Speaker 4 (03:02):
Okay, but there was there were so many moments for
him to say, hey, you know, I think a great
you know, I'm supporting your opponent.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Yeah, I'm having an event, And I.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Sort of get this notice that the community in the
Landmark is going over to this event for my opponent,
and I'm like, what is what's happening here? And it's
just it showed me that too many people don't think
about us as human beings, right, and they think that
the general rules of polite society, where you know you're
a person and I treat you with respect and dignity,
just don't apply the folks who are in politics.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
I actually that's part of what's broken in our political
system today.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
And I do think I do think that my wording
of this as losing your humanity was intentionally a little
bit too far, But there is something that gets lost,
and you can see it. For example, I'll pick on
Republicans for a minute. In Congress right now, probably the
vast majority of Republicans know that this budget is.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Terrible, although probably for all the different.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Reasons than why you think it's a bad budget, Like
probably pretty bad budget for probably probably really irresponsible spending
going on in Washington.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Oh good.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
We're usually obligated in Colorado to pass a balance budget.
So I have been on the budget committee three years,
and every year I have passed a balance budget. Well,
your House, it's usually required to, but it's still a
great talking point. I think that, especially for a state
like ours, that's the right way to go. And whatever
you think about ongoing debt at a federal level, there
is a certain amount that is healthy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
The amount we have.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
We are almost at a point where we will be
borrowing money more money to pay interest on our debt
than we're actually spending.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah way, And yet if you.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Were in Congress, especially if you are a relatively young
member of Congress trying to make your way up, you
would vote for every single spending increase, probably that leadership
wanted you to, just as Republicans right now are going
along with this budget that blows up the deficit and.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Debt, even though they all campaigned against it.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
So it's not exactly losing your humanity, but it's it's
it's losing something. And I think think that happens maybe
a little bit less at the state legislature than in Congress,
but it still happens.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
So when I was running for office the first time,
I had a great conversation with Casey Becker, who ended
up being the Speaker of the House here in Colorado
a few years later, and she said, when you're thinking
about a vote, the sort of three things to think about,
and in this order are your conscience, your constituents, and
your caucus. And if your conscience calls you to vote
a particularly way, you've got to follow that. If your
(05:25):
constituents have a particularly very strong opinion about a bill,
you got to go that way. And then sort of
third and finally is caucus. And I would actually expand
that to sort of a broader view, the broader political perspective.
Right there are bills that pass unanimously in the Senate.
They're on the consent calendar, and every now and then
you get a few members of both both parties going
(05:46):
up and saying, I'd like to be marked to no
on this bill. But generally these are bills that no
one's really opposed to. I think on the whole, some
of them on the consent calendar make a huge difference
for the people of Colorado. Many of them are really
playing around the edges. They're not the kinds of bills
that you would talk about on this show. But sometimes
they're just good government fixes and sometimes they're just lame
and and it's like am I am I really going
(06:08):
to go up there and vote no on a colleagues's
bill just because I think it's like, not great.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah, it doesn't do any harm, right, and it doesn't
bother me.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
That much either, But I think, Okay, so Becker said
conscience something in caucus and caucus and you see that
on somebody.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
I get that, but but it's wrong t more.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
The reason that it's wrong is that there should be
another C word that comes first to care for us,
I know, before all of those others.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Constitution.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Sure, if it's not constitutional, it doesn't matter if your
caucus wants it. It doesn't matter if your conscience wants it.
And you know, Democrats hope, let me let me finish
my sense. So Democrats don't even usually don't even pretend
to care about that, so at least you're not hypocrites.
Republicans pretend to care about it and then just go
(07:05):
ahead with any unconstitutional stuff they want or Donald Trump wants,
So they're hypocrites.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
But I think the Constitution has to.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Come first, and nobody pays enough attention to it completely.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
A great constitution has to come first. We are advised
by the folks who draft the bills in the legislature,
so we don't. Actually, we sort of come up with
the ideas, and we can come up in cases with
language for our bills. But there's a whole team of
lawyers who don't practice law outside the building. Their entire
job is drafting laws, drafting bills in the legislature, and
(07:40):
they have very strong opinions about what is constitutional and
what is not constitutional. And if we're looking at a
bill that they think even approaches that line, they will
let us know, and they will let generally they will
let other people know as well. So it's sort of
like constitutionality is assumed. And I think we can have
a nice discussion about some of the gun bills this
year and whether or not you and your listeners believe
(08:02):
that they aligned the US Constitution.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
In fact, I got too let's listener text on that already,
but still give me. Give me twenty nine seconds, because
I like prime numbers on why you got a divinity
to a divinity degree from Harvard and how you think
it changed you as a person or or as a politician.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
If I can do a little more than twenty nine seconds.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Okay, So I grew up agnostic, sort of just not
sure about what was true, what wasn't. I saw a
lot of people really into this Christianity thing. I had
some friends in high school who took me to their
you know, their their Sunday school sort of thing on Wednesdays.
I asked questions that frankly, Sunday school people are not
equipped to answer. So I sort of I had this
(08:48):
journey of questioning for many, many years, and one year
I found myself in the National Cathedral in Washington, d C.
Which is beautiful, one of the most beautiful places in
the world. There was a woman presiding at the service.
It was an even song service, so it was a
choral service, it was sung, it was a social justice message.
It was one of the most beautiful moments of my life.
(09:11):
And it to me, it felt like, oh, there's something
here that that really resonates with what I've heard about
this Jesus guy my whole life, which really did not
resonate with a lot of the conservative Christians that I
had heard from, you know, recognizing the humanity in each other,
love your neighbor, you know, regardless of their state of sin,
and and there was something that drew me in and
(09:32):
I'm like, what is this. It's an episcopal church. And
I know if you knew this, the cathedral is a yeah,
I used to live right, that's great. It's just gorgeous.
They have a moon rock and a window there. It's
very cool. So they so I looked into it more
and I joined the Episcopal Church, went through catechumenic, which
is like training when you become an Episcopalian later in life.
And the first class that we had was what is sin?
(09:54):
I was like, oh, here we go, here's where I leave. Yeah,
And the answers we came to was anything that gets
in the way of the relationships that God wants you
to have with yourself, with other people, with creation, and
with God. And I thought that's fantastic, right, that is
so contextual. It is it's not this like lists of like,
you know, do this, this, this, this and this. It
(10:15):
really recognizes that the world is messy and doing the
right thing at times takes discernment.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
It takes a real.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Ability to figure out all the different things that are
that are going on and play into that. And I
actually think going to Divinity School and spending three years
asking questions about justice and right and wrong was the
perfect background for going into the legislature.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
That's what we do.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Right, the lawyers sort of take the laws we pass
and it's like math with words. What are the facts
of the case, what's the law? What's the outcome? Right
in the legislature we say, what's the world we want
to have?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
What?
Speaker 4 (10:47):
What do we think the right role of government is?
What do we think, you know, the society around us
should be? And how do we get there? And I
think that is a question of justice. And so my
divinity background, I think works perfectly with the work that
I've been doing.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
I wanted to ask Jeff that question because I don't
think most listeners think of politicians generally having that kind
of conversation, and maybe in particular, again I'm not trying
to be sarcastic, probably don't think of Democrats as having
that kind of conversation.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
So there are two members of the legislature with the
Master's of Divinity degree, we're both Democrats.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Who's the other one?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Basenekker in the House And if you're just joining, we're
talking with State Senator Jeff Bridges. What's your district number?
I should know because I'm in it.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Twenty six. It's okay, No one knows, No one knows
the district number.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
If you even know who you're a state representative senator
is you're a very unique human being. You know the
district number. I don't even know the numbers of my colleagues.
All right, you're so.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
So.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Jeff is in leadership and the Democratic Party in the
State Senate.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
He's chairman of the Joint Budget Committee. Are you chairman
next year?
Speaker 1 (11:49):
No?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
We flipped.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
So the number the House Senate goes back and forth,
Joint House and Senate Committee.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
And Jeff is also a candidate for State treasurer. And
hopefully we'll get to that in a bit, but for
the moment, I want to kind of keep health network
and treasure stuff separately. So let's talk about a couple
of bills and a couple of constitutional things. Let's talk
about Senate Bill three, which is the obvious infringement on
the Second Amendment that you guys passed and pull Us signed,
(12:16):
even though I told him in a private conversation, don't
sign this nonsense.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Why do you think it's constitutional?
Speaker 4 (12:27):
So, if you look at the history of rights in
this country, just because you have a right to something
doesn't mean that as an unfettered right, And especially if
exercising that right leads to violence, there is a constitutionally
allowed limit on that so speech. For instance, I quote
this and the trolls online lose their minds. But Oliver
(12:49):
Wendel Holmes said that you essentially can't shout fire in
a crowded theater, right, because that leads to panic. People
rush the doors, they get trampled. If it's not true.
You can't say that in that context if it leads
to that panic. Right, So there is that there's a
case where there is an immediate negative consequence for exercising
that right, and that is constitutionally an accepted limit on
(13:12):
that right.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Like you can't incite to violence, right, you can't.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
You can't.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
The fire in the crowded theater thing is very misunderstood,
and we talked about it last week, I know, and anyway,
keep going, we can.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
But the principle though, and the reality is that anything
that incites violence is an accepted limit on free speech
in this country. So you know, you look at at
free exercise of religion, there's there's all sorts of constitutional
history on where are the lines on these? The default is, yes,
you can do this, but the then you have to
(13:44):
look around and say what's the impact of this, and
and for cenebil three where it ended up. And I
think the piece that that you dislike the most, and
that that I hear from folks that they disliked the most,
is not necessarily the training. It's the check by the sheriff.
And what I hear every time there is a mass shooting,
every time, what I hear from Republicans is this is
(14:05):
a behavioral health issue. It's not guns, it's behavioral health. Well,
what we've done in this bill is put that behavioral
health check in Right, it's the same check that we
have currently for concealed carry, and.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
It is now the check that we will have for But.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
It it doesn't do anything determined by dr Do you really.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Think it's gonna catch I mean, most of these people
who do this stuff appear normal when they're buying a gun.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
I think there are some folks that have not appeared normal.
I think the Aurora Theater shooter there was some real
red flags there wellun intended. Yeah, that that probably would
have kept him from gaining access to the weapons.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
But how does this change that, right?
Speaker 1 (14:44):
I mean, maybe red flag could change that or something,
but I don't.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I don't see I think this is.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
I understand that Jared thinks that the training piece is
really important and you should have to get training, and
by the way, I think you should get training. But
there's a big difference between you should do something and
the government is going to force you to do something,
and otherwise you won't be able to exercise a constitutional right.
I think the best argument from your side is we're
not really blocking the constitutional right because you could just
go buy a different gun rather than the gun in
(15:14):
this category. I think that's your strongest argument, and I
still don't think it's a great one.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
I actually think that for the vast majority of gun owners,
this bill will not change their ability to access the
weapons that they would like to purchase. The bill is
introduced would have eliminated wholesale any sort of semi automatic
weapon that had a detachable magazine. So that is a
(15:38):
very much different bill from where we ended up, which
is if you want that semi automatic rifle. And I
think it can be interpreted to include a certain class
of handguns as well. But listen to your conversation with
Paul Undine. I do think there is a class of
handguns that fall into this. But if you want that
semi automatic that you go get the okay from the sheriff,
the same okay that you get when you want to
(16:00):
conceal carry permit, and then you take a class, you
still have access to those and unless there's really something
going on, I could be wrong about this, but it
doesn't really functionally change the ability.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
I don't think my sheriff can deny me a concealed
carry permit unless I've been charged or convicted of something,
or unless maybe.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
There's a red flag violation.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
Under this thing, a sheriff doesn't really have to have.
There doesn't have to be a conviction, as I read
the law, the sheriff can just say I think his
past behavior makes him a little too risky and I'm
not going to let him get it, and that bothers me.
All right, let's keep going. You know, we have so much,
so much to do. I wonder if you could maybe
come back time. Well, mate, could you stick through a
break and do one more segment? We still have a
(16:39):
few minutes in this one. So one of the things
that really got my listeners very upset was House Bill
thirteen twelve, and this originally would have had, for example,
is so if you have a child who's born female
and wants to identify a male, the original version of
the bill would have said that, Let's say there were
parents who were getting divorced and there was a custody fight,
(17:00):
were a parent who insisted on referring to the child
by in this case, her biological gender, that would be
held against the parents in custody hearings. So that's been
taken out. My question for you is why does any
politician think that's okay to put in And is there
(17:20):
some point at which you think your own Democratic colleagues
are nuts?
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Because I don't think you're crazy.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I think you're relatively moderate as today's Democrats go. But
you got to be pretty nuts to put that in there.
How does that even get in a bill that could pass?
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Yeah, it's important to know.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
On this particular bill, those particular provisions were opposed and
removed from the bill, in large part due to requests
from the LGBTQ plus community here in the state. So
One Colorado represents that community largely at the Capitol, and
they had serious concerns with this bill as introduced. They
(18:01):
didn't outrite a posed, but they were in an amend position.
So there's sort of different positions you can take on
a bill. Amend is essentially we don't like the bill
as it is, and we don't support it as it is,
and we need changes. And so you know, the leading
LGBTQ plus group in this state said this bill is
not acceptable as it So I think that's important context here, right.
(18:25):
It may be introduced, there may be members of the
legislature that support it in that way, but even one
Colorado change I get.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
That, So, okay, go ahead, we have about a minute here.
Speaker 4 (18:34):
So there's a lot of people that introduced a lot
of bills in the state. There was one two years
ago that was you have to pay a fee and
register all of your pets fifteen bucks for goldfish.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Some things like that.
Speaker 4 (18:45):
So just because bills are introduced doesn't mean that they
have support from the majority of legislators or even the
majority of Democrats. And I think this bill is a
great example of something that was introduced in the Cadillac
version for the sponsor and amended down to something more
like a Chevy. I think it gets the job done
the way it is, but it does not have the
sort of same form and a lot of the same
(19:05):
regulations is in Okay.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think that's a good place to leave it, and
then we'll come back to it in the next break
in the next segment, because you said it gets the
job done. So my question for you at the top
of the next segment will be what is the job
that it is trying to get done?
Speaker 2 (19:20):
And then we're going to talk a little bit about I.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Want to do two more things with you in the
next segment, which will be shorter than this one, was
taking a look at next year's budget and running for treasurer.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Okay,
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com