« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Can Jane Norton Think For Herself?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 4th, 2010 at 07:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Jane Norton is a nice lady. Don’t believe me? Ask Ken Buck. He has not been going around the campaign trail personally attacking Jane Norton, just pointing out policy differences. Despite the establishment talking points that those differences are minimal, if at all, they are actually quite big on a few big issues. On the paramount issue — who will be conservative before being a tool of the party — Norton fails.

And now she is out to change that. Along the way though, she must overcome the perception that she can’t think for herself. And given this profile, that might be difficult.

Throughout the profile, Norton keeps attacking Ken Buck based on his connections, his closet liberalism (nevermind he is a Jim DeMint style conservative), etc. But everytime she finishes, she has to ask her staff about it.

“I’m true to conservative principles, and we need people who will have broader appeal,” she said, glancing at staffer Cinamon Watson, sitting at a table nearby. “Cinamon, what else?”

In a telephone town hall later that day, Norton crouched in a Burlington motel room and took questions from more than 2,000 people who listened in. After responding, she often asked Penry — who was on the line from Denver — whether he could add anything.”

The dirty little secret in Washington is that most staffers are there to build their resumes, not fight for freedom. If Norton is relying this heavily now, she’ll only be worse in Washington.

But there is more to it.

Jane Norton is the John McCain picked, Washington GOP Establishment funded candidate for the Republican nomination in Colorado.

She is Washington come to town. So her staff has hit on a novel strategy — surround herself with people the National Republican Senatorial Committee fought against.

Yesterday, Jane Norton did a campaign event that also included Marco Rubio’s campaign and Pat Toomey’s campaign. Norton is trying to embrace them and claim the mantle of outsider — something she cannot do.

Neither Rubio nor Toomey would have supported the largest tax hike in Colorado history, something Jane Norton did. And neither of these guys got John McCain or the NRSC’s love and affection.

Oh, and neither Rubio nor Toomey would have skipped the grassroots Republican Assembly, which Jane Norton did after yet again listening to her staff.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • AceInTX

    ?I?m true to conservative principles, and we need people who will have broader appeal,?

    I mean…in the very same sentence, she says both:

    (1) I am true to conservative principles

    (2) We need to have broader appeal, (which is RINO code for we have to govern like Democrats).

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Toomey & Rubio campaign for Norton and it’s a negative.

    Seems odd they weren’t campaigning for Buck if he’s the true conservative.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Reagan had broad appeal. I’m not saying Norton is Reagan, but I don’t see a problem outright with her statement. She’s right, conservatives need to have broad apeal. Look at Gov. Christie in NJ. About the only people that don’t like him are the hardcore progressives and Teacher’s Union cronies.

  • Aaron Gardner

    To try and act like he did is spin.

    And please quit with the “true conservative” crap. Every time you use that term as a pejorative it is just like those who use “Rino”.

    All youend up doing is damaging conservatism, not Buck.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    preception / perception, para 2
    “are their to build” / there para 6

  • betsyred

    Jane Nortons’ reliance on her handlers and human teleprompters is troubling. They will not be able to go with her to Washington and sit on the floor of the Senate and prompt her words and actions. She can try to absorb success from the Toomey and Rubio camps and she may well pull that off, but in the end, its her viewpoint and her votes that matter to CO, not those of other Senators. Buck stands for the average person and his quiet manner, rejection of smear tactics and thoughtful responses are more in tune. The very thought of a candidate with ties to Washington insider politics and John McCain leave a bad taste these days. Ms. Norton’s heavy reliance on assistance from her inside support system reminds me of watching senators such as Ted Kennedy sitting in a hearing, asking questions that were prepared in advance by his staff, or that he was hearing from a tiny headphone. We want legitimate candidates that can stand alone, answer questions alone and can take responsibility for their actions. We are not interested in carefully crafted statements and rehearsed responses.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    You don’t think if Jane Norton wins the primary that Bennet or Romanoff won’t use stuff like this (Jane Norton can’t think for herself) against her? This isn’t a disicussion of issues, this is a personal attack. Giving ammunition to the other side is not a way to win elections.

    I’m not using it as a pejorative. I’m using it in the sense that it’s being used by some to say there’s only one conservative in this race, and that simply isn’t true.

    If you want an echo chamber, just say so. I won’t comment on these any longer.

  • rrreaganite

    Jane Norton is a really solid candidate. She is a conservative and we should not claim anything to the contrary. However…. Ken Buck is the more Conservative and better candidate. I think both would be great, but Buck is the more reformist candidate and therefore, he has my support.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I don’t want an echo chamber. Debate is fine. You are the one calling Erick out for having a different opinion of Norton and Buck then you.

    Think about it.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    My comment was clear. If Rubio had been campaigning for Buck, the diary would’ve had a much different take on his involvment. The fact that Rubio is RedState’s favorite candidate and he campaigned for Norton instead of Buck really creates a problem with the narrative. I get that.

    And I’m just stating a different opinion. You’re the one that doesn’t like it.

  • rrreaganite

    Has anything personally against Norton. Actually he has mentioned several times that he likes her, but that he prefers Buck. You’re comments are baseless.

  • betsyred

    Until the Democrat Party gets finished trashing Marco Rubio in this Florida GOP corruption scandal, probably all candidates for the Senate would do well to avoid him at this point. Hitching your wagon to him may not be a good idea as they will attempt to not just pull him down, but then will have other candidates aligned with him to take down with him. They give 100% effort to defend Charlie Crist’s involvement because he’s the new Democrat darling. Rubio will take the heat.

  • Aaron Gardner

    There is a difference. I accept that your op[inion is that Norton is the better candidate.

    You don’t accept Erick’s and so you have gone on a tear against him.

    You accuse him of spinning when he is just offering his opinion of the race. You act like Erick has called Norton a Rino, in multiple diaries now, even though Erick has never made that claim.

    It has become tiresome.

    You are free to do as you like, you know that, but if you are going to stretch what Erick said to make some cheap point it won’t go unchallenged.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    You can’t say things like,

    Can Jane Norton think for herself?

    and then say he likes her.

    I get it. Erick wants Buck as the GOP nominee. He wants Buck because he’ll vote for DeMint for leadership. I get that. At the same time, these attacks against Norton are just going to give the other side ammunition if Norton wins the Primary. This race is still too close to call.

    I’m trying to keep the debate on the issues. The personal attacks have to go. They don’t help, and they do harm. to our cause

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’ve been very clear I don’t have a preference in this race. I’ve said every time that I see little difference between them. Please don’t misrepresent my position when I’ve been very clear about it.

    This diary contains personal attacks. Those will harm our cause. I called it spin. I’m saying stick ot the issues.

    I’m not stretching anything. You know for a fact that if Rubio had campaigned for Buck, there would have been no mention of Norton at all. The fact that Rubio did campaign for Norton goes against the narrative that’s trying to be presented in this race, so it had to be turned into a negative piece against Norton.

    If you’re tired of my comments you don’t have to reply. If Erick thinks I’m out of line, I’m sure he’s capable of responding and saying so.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You should definitely read this one before commenting further.

    “I’m better because I’m the true conservative: I took a leave of absence to run this race,”

    Your chosen candidate is doing exactly what you are complaining about Erick supposedly doing.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    AndI don’t like it from either of them. It’s the primary reason why I refuse to choose a candidate in this race at this time.

    And there you go again.

    I have not chosen a candidate in this race.

    Can I be any more clear?

  • Aaron Gardner

    I apologize for misunderstanding your position on what candidate you support.

    Now, since you are saying that both are doing it would you mind linking and quoting Erick doing that?

    I mean, I did that for you so it’s only fair.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    is that they’re both making personal attacks. And I mean the candidates. It’s been going on for months here.

    As for Erick’s personal attack, I already quoted it for someone else, but will do so for your benefit.

    Can Jane Norton think for herself?

  • zollistar

    Re: “About the only people that don?t like him are the hardcore progressives and Teacher?s Union cronies.”

    I live next door to New Jersey (New York) and I have bad news: Christie’s state is awash in both, i.e., those progressives and cronies.

    The governor’s challenge cannot be overstated.

  • Aaron Gardner

    First you will notice the question mark. Then, if you actually read the linked profile you would understand why that question is being asked.

    And it isn’t a personal attack. It is a legitimate political question.

    Is Norton relying on her staff for her positions or is she relying on her own principles?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    It gives ammunition to the other side if Norton wins. If that’s your plan, then just be ready to live with the consequences.

  • acat

    don’t bash republicans *too* hard in the primaries.

    Both sides are breaking this obvious rule with the obvious consequence that whichever Repub wins, the Dem now has a stack of pre-made, pre-cut campaign ads.

    Yeah, it’s stupid. Both campaigns being stupid just makes the primary harder. We get it.

    What do you propose to *do* about it?

    Mew

  • rossputin

    It’s disturbing to me to read the accurate criticisms of people calling Nikki Haley a “raghead” and then see Erick Erickson repeatedly come out with these petty, personal, damaging-to-conservatives attacks on Jane Norton, a candidate he said he liked, but it was just that he liked Ken Buck better.

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I’ve met with both Buck and Norton individually, i.e. just me and the candidate in a one-on-one meeting. Actually met with Norton twice. Norton is just as smart as Buck and just as conservative.

    She is not “McCain-picked” just because he has the misfortune of her sister having married a guy who was close to the McCain campaign. Furthermore, why doesn’t Erick use “McCain-picked” as a slur against Sarah Palin? If anyone is “McCain-picked”, it’s Governor Palin, obviously. (Anyone hear the crickets?)

    I like Ken Buck as well, but I’m sick of this site’s attacks on Norton. This is not Toomey v Specter of a few years ago where one candidate was a liberal and one a conservative.

    To put a finer point on it: I asked Norton directly “Are you a female John McCain”. Her response was “absolutely not” and she further explained that she’s against:
    1) McCain-Feingold
    2) Amnesty
    3) Cap-and-Trade

    Furthermore, there is nothing in her campaign rhetoric or positions which should cause a web site dedicated to promoting the success of conservatism to keep attacking Jane Norton.

    If she is the nominee of the GOP, we NEED her to beat Bennet or Romanoff in November.

    Those of you who are in tune with Colorado politics might remember what happened a few years ago in a GOP primary for the governor’s race when Marc Holtzman took on Bob Beauprez. Holtzman tagged Beauprez as “both ways bob”, claiming in an outright lie that Beauprez had taken positions on both sides of a major tax issue in Colorado (called Referendum C.) Again, it was a LIE but it stuck to Beauprez and did so much damage to him that he then lost the gubernatorial election to Bill Ritter, a man who has done tremendous damage to our state.

    Erick, you are this election’s Marc Holtzman and you are doing Colorado conservatives no favors.

    I encourage you to cut it out…now. Now, before you give us six more years of a Democrat holding that Senate seat.

    I have not endorsed anybody in this race on my web site or on my Sunday evening radio show. I have to say that Erick’s actions are pushing me toward Norton, however. She is a solid conservative. She strikes me as a good person. She is highly intelligent. She would be an excellent senator, in my view.

    I feel basically the same way about Ken Buck (except for the “she” part.). But just as Red State is trying to get people to support other candidates like Haley based on their being unfairly attacked, it’s troubling to see Erick play the part of attack dog against someone who I think is one of our nation’s better senate candidates in 2010. Jane Norton deserves the support of many and the consideration of all in this primary process, Erick’s petty and internecine attacks notwithstanding.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I understand your point, I just think it is an unrealistic expectation. YMMV.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    There are legitimate issues that separate the candidates. They should be emphasizing those differences, and so should conservative blogs such as RedState.

  • betsyred

    Do we really think the Democrat Party must rely on thoughtful exchange at this site to gain campaign attack talking points? They have a little more savvy and alot of highly paid hacks to dig into the backgrounds of every GOP candidate. Rest assured, they already have their ammo for all our candidates. If we can’t discuss our opinions and exchange ideas, share facts and dispute falsehoods, then we no longer have a First Amendment. Being afraid to fully vet a candidate or reveal issues that certainly are valid and of concern is troublesome. The Democrats listen to the same radio interviews and printed comments that were provided in Erick’s article here. They don’t need us to ‘reveal our secret’ that some voters in Colorado have concerns about whether or not Jane can speak for herself. As stated above, asking that question isn’t an attack. It’s called being an informed voter.

    There’s a reason we have a primary system—to go indepth into each candidate’s positions on the issues. If one of them has to be prompted by a handler, that’s a concern, not an attack. If her supporters can’t get past the fact that many delegates, supporters not just of Buck but also Weins, Tidwell and those undecided, were disgusted with the Norton camp’s lack of respect for our valued caucus system, and feel they must CONTINUE to harp on it, how will she hold up in the Senate when faced with crisis after crisis? If skin is too thin to be able to handle some rooms full of rowdy, fired up Republicans, how will she handle the Progressive Caucus? How will she deal with a terroist incident, bad news from a war front or a national disaster? Judgments are being made based on actions and words spoken. We have a right to question. We want to get this right, don’t we? That means we have to be armed with the most information we can possibly get. Erick has positions and he isn’t covert about them, but he also provides the forum for our comments which means he welcomes debate and discussion.

    The First Amendment is an endangered species–many people are adamant about protecting it at any cost. When the day comes that as Americans, protected under the First Amendment, feel compelled to stay silent about a concern for fear we’re giving ammunition to the other side, then the Democrats HAVE succeeded, haven’t they?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    There’s a right way and a wrong way to differentiate candidates. There are legitimate issues in this race. My point is, places like RedState should lead the way in doing it right.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    And if you don’t think the opposition is looking under every rock for ammunition against their opponent, then you’re very naive about politics these days.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • betsyred

    Of course they are looking under every rock! You wrote that personal attacks are not fine–yet you just attacked me for being politically naive. You have no clue of my political knowledge, background or experience.

    Yes, they are looking under rocks, the Republicans are doing the same for Romanoff and Bennet and Hickenlooper, but does that mean whenever there is a question we should stay silent because the opposition will use it? The Democrats would love for no one to talk about the Romanoff news that came out this week, so should that information be hidden and kept silent? We no longer can ask valid questions? Apparently, this question of whether or not Ms. Norton speaks for herself is a real Achilles Heel–supporters seem very protective of that issue and don’t want to discuss it. Does that suggest they believe she really is vulnerable on this point?

  • Aaron Gardner

    And you are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn’t a legitimate issue.

    You have your opinion of what is legitimate and I have mine.

    I think you hold to a very broad definition of “personal attack”.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Norton has surrounded herself with a team of good people. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know why anyone else would either.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    And you have a problem with that. So deal with it however you see fit.

  • RINKER

    Rubio is the biggest star the Republican Party has and he is an honorable man. Nice try.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
  • RINKER

    Is this the worst criticism of Jane Norton? I don’t know much about the race, but it sounds kind of petty and silly to me. From everything I have read, she is a solid conservative, and the only reason people doubt her is because she has some establishment support. I’m sure I would be happy with either Buck or Norton, unless someone gives me some ISSUES that would convince me otherwise.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • acat

    What do you propose to *do* about it?

    Not “what would you make Buck do if you were God” or “what would you make Norton do if you had a mind control ray”.

    What will you, Night Twister, be doing about this, since obviously it’s gotten under your skin.

    What do you suggest the rest of us non-front-page non-candidate non-entities (essentially) do?

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    That is, until they ask me to stop. It is their site, after all.

  • val1198

    Yesterday, she had a joint picture opportunity with Rubio and Toomey. It looks like it was arranged by a specific PAC for that specific reason. Collusion anyone? Just askin’…

    Norton didn’t qualify for Sen Jim DeMint’s endorsement so she will show us pictures with Rubio and Toomey, and try to convince us that she has the Senate Conservative Fund’s endorsement; that she is one of them.

    How low will Jane Norton go?

    Norton was hand-picked by McCain. She has even admitted it.

    And no self-respecting conservative would ever support the largest tax increase in Colorado history. She did just that, and she still tries to defend her liberal behavior.

  • val1198

    Former Governor Bill Owens who worked with the Democrats to push through the biggest tax increase in Colorado history.

    John McCain who has never seen an amnesty proposal he didn’t like (until right now since he’s trying to tell us he’s a conservative). McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Schumer …

    Josh Penry, known as one who will do anything to get what he wants. He has a terrible voting record on taxes and just recently, voted for a natural gas monopoly for electric generation. So much for “conservatives” letting the market determine activity.

    Yeah, good company she keeps.

  • val1198

    NightTwister, can you please enumerate any personal attacks Buck has made against Norton?

  • jbben

    NightTwister: Why is it perfectly OK for you to have strong opinions (which obviously show you DO have a perferred candidate, despite your inability to be straight forward)? Why do you get to define terms? Seems that you label anything you don’t personally like an “attack”. Too personal! Are you that naive? Obviously a person’s personality and character are part of the equation, but your rules say we can’t discuss how capable an individual candidate is to handle issues. I’m afraid personality and character are rather important issues. Does the candidate have what it takes to stand strong and put conservative ideals into actual practice? (Newsflash: Democrats have their own sources. Our discussions are not “letting the cat out of the bag!”)
    I think most people would agree that Erik’s article is NOT an attack. Who are you to decide what we may or may not discuss? Who are you to force your definitions on anyone else? They are just your opinions. Drop the “shoulds.” And the attitude. I must say, though, that your name is highly appropriate…TWISTER. Rather ironic that your posts come across as attacking. I’m outta here.

  • conservativecrusade

    for “adding” so much to the conversation. But then again, guess we always need the Jesus types that feel they are so infallible, it is their job to point out typos and spelling errors!

    Carry on! There are many more blogs and posts that need your correcting eye.

  • flier1

    Nice try. It seems to me thst if Jane were a storng candidate she would not have to call in her friends to advocate for her. Rubio and Toomey are good people but they are not Coloradoans andnot familiar with the issues of our State. Why can’t Jane stand on her own merits and deal with the issues question by question? I believe that she lacks confidence and is weak. In the dayto day batlles of the Senate she will wither and not stand strong for Colorado. This a stunt quite imaginative but it would be better to see her stand tall and answer the tough questions and take her lumps and stay on message.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Josh Penry has a terrible voting record? You’re from Alaska, right?

  • uhangtight

    Thanks …we have to wake up and realize that just maybe the Dems are three steps ahead.. we need to think ahead and FULLY vet the candidates before they make it the Dems for fodder…

  • uhangtight

    This is vetting..
    Not Personal Attack.

    Obvious weakness: ‘Con’ isn’t controlling her staff, they are controlling her. NOT so sure I would want to place my one vote on her: lacks executive ‘in-charge’ experience or persona as a candidate.

    We need to turn this government oppression on the people back…. is all I am saying. I do not want another Politician relying on some underling as to how they are to ‘vote’…this is all I am saying. I see this as a fundamental weakness that cannot be trusted at any level of government (city, county, state and/or federal government). That is politics and not ‘personal’.

  • chof

    I attended the event yesterday with Toomey and Rubio. Norton is the true conservative! One of many Buck smears says she is not! There is nothing conservative in Buck at all! He is copying from Glen Beck. It is all talk! There is nothing he has done that is conservative at all! He supported Ref C, and his DA office has received funds from it. Norton has a proven, conservative track record.

  • val1198

    Look at CUT’s ratings for Penry. He’s fairly far down the list of Republicans in the Colorado Senate, and he failed to sign the CUT Pledge.
    http://www.coloradotaxpayer.org/new/CUT-ratings-2009.pdf

    Yeah, Norton has some real winners speaking for her.

  • gekster

    from project vote smart.
    http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=29968

    as usual, make up your own mind.

  • Bill S

    “democrats” should be capitalized in your signature.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    what makes a fella shorten his signature to unreasonably brief shortness. Why, I had to remove both sonnets and almost all my links for fear you’d find an error and make a fool of me, too.

  • AceInTX

    I agree we need to have broader appeal…and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with hes statement if it’s take simply at face value…but there is a history to be considered here and her statement can’t be taken at face value because much like the french calling each other “Citizen” or the Communists calling each other “Comrade”…words take on new meanings over time and certain buzz words or phrases take on new meaning over time…

    For instance…If I say “I’m for tolerance”…am I really saying I’m for tolerating other people’s views…as the phrase implies…or does it mean what it’s come to mean…that I’m for a libertine value system where anything goes and there is no morality…and I will not tolerate an opposing view?

    RINOs have pounded the “broad appeal”…Big Tent drum to the point where the term “Broad Appeal” means we’re going to act like Democrats to attract Moderates and Independents and as a result drive away everyone!

  • AceInTX

    I wouldn’t say Christi is pursuing what has come to be known as a “Broad Appeal”, “Big Tent Approach to governing is he?

    He’s drawing bright and distinct lines in the sand and standing by them…as did Reagan….that was their appeal….they stood for something….and they stood on what they stood for….they didn’t embrace broad compromises which the term “Broad Appeal means when I hear it.

  • river

    lets try the law of parsimony. seems the simplest solution is to look at norton and buck department budgets ?
    who is fiscally responsible?
    who stayed within the budget?
    who cut costs?
    who expanded their department?

    that is an important issue to base a vote upon ….

  • river

    lets try the law of parsimony. seems the simplest solution is to look at their department budgets ? who is fiscally responsible? who stayed within the budget? who cut costs? who expanded?

  • pittbull

    Norton and her staff. Obama and his tele-prompter.
    Remove staff and tele-prompter both are speechless.