« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Battle Moves to Colorado

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 24th, 2010 at 08:35 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

battlecolorado.jpg

Conservatives did a marvelous job rallying in South Carolina and Utah. Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Jeff Duncan scored major conservative victories in South Carolina. Mike Lee will go on to be the next senator from Utah.

The next big race will be Ken Buck vs. Jane Norton in Colorado. And conservatives need to rally to Ken Buck.

Already the Norton campaign has gone totally negative. It’s becoming increasingly hysterical to see Norton supporters complain loudly that “Ken Buck did it first” when it is Norton folks sending out mail attacking Ken Buck already, not to mention emails galore.

The Norton camp is fully disintegrating in panic because new polling shows Ken Buck with a sixteen point lead. Norton is being advised by John McCain’s consultant Charlie Black, who is also Norton’s brother-in-law. I’m afraid if conservatives don’t unite quickly behind Ken Buck, Charlie Black and Jane Norton’s angry young campaign manager Josh Penry are going to go scorched earth on Ken Buck — if Norton can’t win they’ll make it impossible for Ken Buck to win too.

Already Penry is out to destroy SurveyUSA for showing Ken Buck up 16 points. In an email to Norton supporters, Penry noted, “SurveyUSA predicted that Dean would win the Iowa Caucuses. SurveyUSA missed the mark by a wide margin, overestimating Dean’s support by six percentage points and underestimating Kerry’s by nearly seventeen points.”

The difference of course is that Iowa was a caucus, not a primary, and polling can never predict caucus dynamics as well as primary dynamics.

More troubling, as Jane Norton increasingly appears staff driven on every decision, her campaign manager, Josh Penry, is siding with Democrats in the Colorado State Senate on noxious environmental laws that his own GOP caucus opposes. In particular, Penry is trying to force Xcel Energy to convert from coal to natural gas for power generation.

As a RedState reader notes, “[Penry hacked] off the rest of the GOP Caucus with his support (and co-sponsor of) a bill that directs Xcel to replace clean Colorado coal with natural gas. It was a little eerie and upsetting to see the Colorado Senate Minority leader standing at the podium to defend the Democrats against his own Caucus on the bill. Instead of letting the free market determine the winners and losers, he wanted to do something for the oil and gas industry.”

When Jane Norton can’t finish a sentence without asking Cinamin if there is anything else to add, having her campaign run by a Republican who is willing to throw his own GOP caucus under the bus for bad legislation is disturbing.

Ken Buck is a solid conservative district attorney. Jim DeMint and I are both proud and happy to support him. He’s right on the issues, won’t go squishy on immigration, and will fight for freedom.

Conservatives need to rally to Ken Buck now in Colorado.

And note how I drew the arrows. We also need to help Pamela Gorman in Arizona and Rick Barber in Alabama. They need significant help right now.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rdelbov

    I think its significant that Jane Norton has the support Dr. Tom Coburn plus several national right to life groups as she is solid on social issues. In addition she served in the Reagan adminstration and is endorsed by former Senator Bill Armstrong. She is an absolute solid conservative in my opinion as Tom Coburn and Bill Armstrong are flat out conservative icons.

    I also think Ken Buck is very fine man and a good conservative. Either Buck or Noron would be great senators and I think both can beat Senator Bennett.

    I urge both campaigns to take the highroads.

  • victoria_29

    Has anyone else noticed this election cycle every single politician & all these “new” activists are all “conservatives” but in many cases while they are screaming they are conservatives they support a RINO over the true Conservative candidate & your going huh? It is like they do not get it that Republican and Conservative are not in most cases the same thing.

  • rdelbov

    and how do you identify them? One easy way is think “true conservative as democrat”. Maybe just maybe Boren of OK and Taylor of MS in the house. Maybe. They vote conservative but still do that Pelosi thing.

    So if you eliminate the democrats (and I do) then you must look for the “true conservatives” among the GOP.

    In my view a “true conservative” is right on social and conservative issues. I think of Jesse Helms-Bill Armstrong-Jim DeMint-Coburn-Bunning. There have been mighty few “true pure 100% conservatives”.

    When I ponder over the last 30 or so years the “pure 100% conservatives” make up a mighty small crowd. Here is the short list of true 100% in the US senate right now–okay lets say 99.9% (there are some local and Agriculture subsidy issues that are not pure)

    DeMint
    Burr
    Coburn
    Sessions
    Bunning
    Brownback
    Inhofe
    Crapo
    Raisch (ID)
    Barasso

    I think these guys are in the 99% range–you can always quibble about some trade or local issue or Agriculture issue but they are for freedom and small government plus are right on social issues

  • mjdzfun

    Ok, Redstate, here we go again. I’m in for support.

  • earlgrey

    I know this wasn’t an issue in Utah, but not sure about Colorado.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    They are both slightly ahead of the Dem candidates at this point. The numbers are within the margin of error, so in that regard you could say they’re equal. That’s of course subject to change as things get closer.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    RS is determined to get Buck elected. That’s fine, everyone’s gotta have a horse in the race. What’s bothered me and others is the innuendo that Norton is a moderate or a RiNO. The comparisons to Crist and Specter. Those are out of line, imo, and I’ve said so and will continue to say so.

    Do I have problems with Norton? You bet I do. Her support of Ref C (especially her continued support of that decision) is quite disturbing. The rest of the stuff being brought up about her is just juvenile.

    The thing is, I also have some concerns about Buck. His campaign has made several amateur mistakes. He can’t raise money, even as the front runner now.

    I wish I could get behind one candidate or the other in that race, but neither one has really distinguished them sel, nor has been able to sufficiently answer the concerns many people have. The general election is going to be a tough battle. The last thing we need here is for people to give the opposition their talking points for that race. It’s happened three times in the past four years here, and those of us in-State are working hard to keep it from happening again.

  • rdelbov

    Neither CFG or Palin have endorsed in this race. Norton is certainly a solid conservative and I think Buck is too. I think either can win in November.

    I note that while Erick warns of Norton going negative on Buck–so far all her ads have been either anti Obama or anti Bennett–he has also posted several negative attacks on Norton. One attack on her centered on her unwillingness to state an opinion on some bill she had never heard of. Erick lambasted her actually wanting to know everything in a bill before she stated an opinion on it. This is from someone who leads the charge and rightly so on people in DC voting on 2000 page bills no one has ever read. So you can be pro-Buck and he has many fine points but don’t tear down the other candidate

    If you are pro-Buck be positive ditto for Norton folks.

  • winthisone

    would never support and continue to defend the biggest tax increase in Colorado history

  • winthisone

    Jane wouldn’t stand a chance against Bennet or Romanoff. She’s like milquetoast (according to Michelle Malkin). Take a look at the recent ad she’s running.

  • deano64

    candidates campaign. Erick posting something negative about a candidate and a political campaign going negative are two very different things. We here at Redstate should ALWAYS point out the negatives of our chosen candidates opponent. We are at war for control of the Republican party. We aren’t here to play nicey nice and sing kumbaya. Do we leave the party in the hands of the establishment good ole boys? Or do we as conservatives work to take it back? I’m going to work to take it back. Now having said that and growing up and living in CO until 2 years ago I think if Norton won it certainly wouldn’t be the end of the world. However, out of the two Buck is the best candidate and we should work to support him. Now can nasty primary races be damaging to the primary winner? Yes they can.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Now can nasty primary races be damaging to the primary winner?

    Just ask Bob Beauprez. It is because of the nastiness of that campaign that we now have Gov. Bill Ritter (D).

  • redtillimdead

    Norton has more money, for now. I think Buck is going to have a big quarter though. They will probably be about even in CoH after this quarter. Both poll very well and have strong campaigns built.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    They show Buck and Norton beating the Dem by the same margin (within the MoE).

  • SIConservative
  • deano64

    “both ways Bob” attack ads. Also I realized after the fact I had singed the damn petition for that other !@#%$& to get on the ballot. Last time I signed any petition without actually knowing exactly what it was even though it sounded harmless at the time.

  • rdelbov

    in the US senate right now because of nasty GOP primary fights. One more GOP senator and obamacare would have went down. So Nasty primary fights do have real effects.

    I am all for spirited defense of one’s views so Prop C & TABOR are fair game for discussion in CO race.

    Calling in question another canidate’s intelligence when she is clearly quite smart is another matter. Ditto for attacks on one’s faith as was done in South Carolina.

    if we are at War do you fight like the Japanese at Bataan or do we take our prisoners to POW camps.

    I deplore “Morman temple” leaflets that were used against Lee. That’s despicable and I guess those people thought they were at war and whatever they did was legit.

    In a political campaign you can hit hard and show policy differences without lying or being insulting.

    I am not implying anyone here has lied or condoned it. I do not agree with Erick’s previous post on Jane Norton and questioning her intelligence.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you disagree with Erick, argue back. But accusing him of lying just because you disagree, is itself an unfair attack on Erick.

  • rdelbov

    I guess that part where I said I was not calling anyone a liar here but rather deplored lies being used in political campaigns was not clear enough.

    I am all in favor of campaigning hard ubt take no prisoners campaigns have a long history of failure.

    I accused of Erick of being unfair in his personal attacks on Norton but not lying about it. The incident in question –that Erick related here at this site earlier this month-roughly goes like this.

    Some voter at a forum asked Jane Norton about some bill-say House bill #3584 and said that it was pro-life and against gay marriage. Norton refused to comment on the bill because she never heard of the bill or read it. The voter said “it pro-life-its anti gay marriage-trust me I know” but Norton still refused to voice an opinion on it but rather said she would ask her husband about the bill as he worked for a major pro-Christian organization the ADF.

    Erick had a good laugh over how Norton appears not to be smart enough to know where to state on an issue without asking someone else. Republicans always complain-and I led the choir on this-about how people should not vote on a bill without reading it. Finally Erick meets someone who believes that and she gets lampooned for it. I think that’s a low blow.

    You can discuss issues and find differences between candidates without being nasty. I might add that Jane Norton is a republican. She served in DC under Ronald Reagan and I think she deserves a little better treatment then that.

    I want to be respectful so I am not accusing Erick of “Borking”Norton but I think between Republicans we can argue against Norton on policy and expirence differences.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s well and good that you have your preferences on what you think the primary should be about.

    But others think the primary should also be about other issues.

    You don’t get to claim any moral high ground and limit the field of debate only to issues you think benefit your candidate.

    Character matters. Extemporaneous speaking matters. The ability not to look like you’re being babysat by your staffers matters. As others have pointe dout, Colorado is a swingy state right now, and we need a nominee who can campaign without looking like a moron.

  • deano64

    to ask their spouse about a particular piece legilation before commenting on it. Maybe someone who can think on their feet would be a good start.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Your take on what happened was closer to a lie than anything ever said by Erick. Frankly, it’s laughable.

  • rdelbov

    Does charactor matter when you distort incidents to suit your perference. What charactor quality is that? I don’t want to go to far but is Norton looking like a Moron in Colorado? Is that what the campaign has come down to in CO? The Press used to attack Reagan for using note cards and all we all laugh at Obama with his teleprompter. I have never heard any say Jane Norton sounds like a Moron.

    Tom Coburn does not endorse Morons.

    I don’t think its a matter of myself trying to limit the primary to the others I want. I think there is a proper way to conduct a primary campaign and one proper way is not to imply your foe is an idiot or a moron.

    As we saw in SC there are limits to what campaigns should do.

    I

  • deano64

    Not to me. She just looks like she’s dodging a fair question. Why wouldn’t she be able to answer that question? It’s pretty simple yes or no answer to a very straight forward question. Ken Buck replied yes. She should have given the person us a yes or no.

  • rdelbov

    that this incidence was a setup as it was quickly related to Erick here at Redstate. I don’t know for a fact but if Ken Buck knew enough to say he supported HR 3284 (or whatever the bill was) someone had briefed him on it.

    We saw enough “Gotcha” stuff with Palin in 2008. Its ambush politics and i deplore when the MSM does and ditto for Redstate. Saying you “don’t that bill and until I read I will not state an opinion on it” is a completely legitmate response to the question. Jumping from there to not being able to think on your feet or being a moron is going to far.

    Jane Norton is not the enemy–she is a very conservtive republican. You can joke about teleprompters and Obama as he is a very liberal democrat. Jane Norton has the support of Tom Coburn-ACU-Family research council and deserves a little more respect. This should be a battle between Friends and not Buck against the enemy.

    Oh yes Susan B Anthony list endorses Norton. Just being a 100% pro-life and pro family ought to be enough to learn a little respect. I personally rsepect Jane Norton for not hitting back at these folks who are spreading the stories about “how she relies on her staff”.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you’re going to spin conspiracy theories, at least use Reply To This.

  • redtillimdead

    I don’t know about ya’ll, but I’d rather defeat a God-awful Republican like John Oxedine on July 20th than wait to defeat a perfectly fine Republican on August 10th. I’d rather have Handel and Norton than Oxedine and Buck. I like both Buck and Norton, but can not stand Oxedine. Georgia is a few weeks before Colorado, so that is the next battle.

  • rdelbov

    I agree 100% that this video does not show anyone from the Buck campaign setting her up? I would love to see Buck’s answer and I still believe that Buck sent this tape to Erick.

    The persons or person asking the question were not Buck people.

    I still say that I would have answered the question the same way. The girl asked Jane Norton “if she would oppose any and all legislation that would force organizations of “Faith” to hire homosexuals”. Jane Norton said she would want to read the legislation 1st. Ken Buck said “Yes” he would oppose it.

    This legislation is a matter of labor law and constitutional law. You do not have to a Constitutional lawyer to be a US senator-ask Dr. Coburn. What exactly is the law in this matter? Its not a subject that comes up everyday in senate debates or discussions? If Jane Norton is unclear as to the constitutionality of it and or whether the bill is a state one or a federal one?

    I am not a constitutional scholar but would this bill be a federal one or a state or could a local city do it? I seem to remember Washington DC doing some sort of bill like this?? Who exactly does this. There are state bill of rights too?

    The words “any and all” got my attention. If that bill also stated the federal government should not hire homosexuals. I would oppose that bill. I suspect Ken Buck would too. The young lady said any and all.

    Ken Buck gave an answer that pleased the crowd but saying you would want to read the bill 1st is a not stupid answer. I might add that while I agree 100% with that concept i would want to see the bill.

  • deano64

    the one I see isn’t what you portray it to be. The only true Moron I see around here is you.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Well, it’s possible that *you* could miss it, since you manage to miss the “reply to this” button every time.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Who pays you to write this garbage? And, I am being charitable by assuming that someone is paying you rather than assuming this is a genuine product of your actual intellect.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    We did, when Ryan Frazier was in the race, but he isn’t anymore so we’ll have to choose between what’s left.

  • sch1168

    2006 was not a good year to be a Republican in Colorado. Have you read The Blueprint yet?

  • rdelbov

    Does it really matter if I leave a comment or click “reply to this” . Is there only one approved way to reply?

    I watched the video and think its a cheap shot to question Jane Norton’s brains based on that video. I would love to see the whole two hour forum discussion but apparently this 1 minute clip is the only one the Buck campaign is pushing.

    No I am not paid by anyone. Apparently anyone who disagrees with the general line here quickly becomes a “Moron”.

    I get the 1st amendment but does “any bill or law” have to be federal-state-local? Does this bill impact indian reservations ? How about military bases that cross state lines and provides buildings for faith based groups to come? If the bill makes it a law to lie on your employee application about your sexual orientation?

    The girl said “any and all bill relating”?

    You can call me a Moron but to me its very clear that Jane Norton’s answer may not have been popular but its a reasonable one.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Since Norton is running for Senate federal laws are the only laws she would be allowed to vote on. “Any and all” is limited by the context of the office she is running for.

    P.S. Please point out where I called you a moron or retract the accusation.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I certainly would not count the federal, state and local governments as organizations of faith. Especially the ones run by the Democrits.

    But then, you’re obviously an idiot, so you probably can’t recognize the distinction.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I certainly would not count the federal, state and local governments as organizations of faith. Especially the ones run by the Democrits.

    But then, you’re obviously an idiot, so you probably can’t recognize the distinction.

  • winthisone

    Norton is not quite at 100% pro-life.

  • winthisone

    Those of you who are pleading for both campaigns to stay positive should propose that to Jane Norton. Just yesterday, on Facebook, she posted a lie about Buck’s DA budget. A response (with proof) disputed Norton’s contention. Instead of correcting her information, Norton just got rid of the response. She is not interested in the truth.

    That is only one of many.

  • jeff_h_morris

    The support of McCain and Charlie Black (the ultimate DC insider) for Jane Norton ought to be enough to support Ken Buck.

    I do not know about Bill Armstrong, but Coburn is unreliable (voted for TARP), and joined McCain to endorse moderate Jerry Moran instead of conservative Todd Tiahrt for Senate here in Kansas. Coburn could not be more wrong in that race, and his Norton endorsement ought to be discounted as well.

    We need full-spectrum conservatives to overcome the liberal/progressive/left lunatics in power now. Halfway measures will not be enough. Vote for the Constitutional conservative, vote for Buck.

  • rdelbov

    No you did not call me a Moron that was dean64 and someone below just called me an idiot

    That’s an inference. A US senator could be asked about a state or local bill. The Colorado senate race has lots of discussion on Prop C and TABOR which are both state laws. US senate canddiates often get questions about local matters think AZ immigration law. She did say “any and all”

    I appreciate not calling me an idiot but lets just ponder Federal law. We all know bills can contain good and bad. What if the following occured

    Section A of a Federal allowed Faith based organizations to hire who they want.
    Section B requires all employers to offer benefits to any sexual partner -male or female of the employer–married or un-married.

    The women said “any bill”–If she had said “in theory should a faith based organization”. I tune in when I hear the word “bill” because legislators lie about what is in “bills”. Has anyone said to you “do you support this bill”? or we need a “bill”.

    My 1st response who is sponsoring this bill? Jim Bunning or Patrick Leahey?

    I see this point one way and you see another way. When I hear “any and all bills” I don’t think give a blanket okay.

  • Aaron Gardner

    That outcome being the federal government forcing a faith based initiative group to hire individuals that are in direct contradiction to what these groups may stand for.

    And on those grounds the idea is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment because it will violate the groups right to exercise their religion as they see fit.

    You only have to read 16 words of the 1st Amendment to understand that as a conservative you should always vote against any peice of legislation that is in violation of the Constitution.

    That’s her job if she is Senator. It’s in her oath of office. Not being a constitutional scholar isn’t an excuse for not defending the Constitution.

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

    Doesn’t matter. It’s clear both sides are heading for the sewer on this one which means voter apathy yet again.

  • deano64

    apathy this year. At least not on the Republican side. I guess we won’t know for sure until November though.

  • deano64

    Hmmm…

  • chof

    Eric,

    You are wrong about this race. There is nothing conservative at all with Buck. He has not done a single thing conservative at all. He is just empty talk. Today the story broke in the Denver Post about Buck’s malfeasance in the US Attorney’s office. Buck has an ethics charge sealed in the Dept. of Justice from this story. Buck also has state ethics charges for grabbing 5,000 Hispanic tax returns from a Hispanic tax preparer. These and other stories make Buck totally unelectable.

  • takemccain2

    I will adamantly oppose ANYONE that Senator McCain supports as well as anyone that McCain people support. Having Charlie Black on Norton’s staff should be reason enough for conservatives to vote for Ken Buck in droves.
    In the next Senate, McCain needs to be marginalized and left with few allies. I’m still optimistic about McCain losing in the primary but if that doesn’t happen we need to make darn certain that he never has enough votes to cobble together another ‘Gang’ to undermine conservatives. Ken Buck would NOT be a McCain yes-man, Norton would.
    NO MORE RINOS!!!

  • Aaron Gardner

    Kowalski is a person and an action. Kowalski the person has a habit of replying and then replying again to the same comment because he thought of another point. Since he has done this for so long at this sight we call it a “kowalski” when any of us regulars do it.

    It’s just a thing we do in this community. We have a lot of little things like that that we do which you will notice if you stick around for a while.

  • janis

    with a particular person, do you just address your replies to that person to, oh, let’s say a chair rather than to the person himself? That’s the importance of following the “Reply to This” rule here. It threads the conversation so we all know who is responding to someone else.

    Your contempt for other commenters here is not a convincing sign of your intelligence and perception. You can learn, like the rest of us, to use the commenting rules for the sake of the community discussions or you can go comment somewhere that doesn’t depend on those conventions. Your call.

  • aesthete

    Both candidates are perfectly conservative. Both are perfectly intelligent, adequate for their jobs, and miles ahead of the Democrats on a qualitative level. There is no problem with saying that. Apparently, some people just can’t refrain from painting their candidate’s opponent as Satan himself.

  • deano64

    Thanks

  • chof

    Buck is not a conservative. I was Buck’s campaign chair for 7 months last year, ending the end of October. Buck never would make a commitment on abortion or marriage. Buck has spent wildly in his DA office, increasing spending by 50%. He also spent $300,000 on defending grabbing the 5,000 Hispanic tax returns illegally. I have asked his supporters over and over to point to one conservative thing that Buck has done. No one has given me anything to date. He is very damaged with the state and federal ethics charges. The Democrats will shred him. Not electable!

  • JamesSmith130

    Is RedState going to take a stance in the Arizona Senate primary? The big “maverick” honcho is up there.

  • rossputin

    My thoughts on Erick’s wrong-headed and, frankly, rather odd determination to get in the middle of a contest between two conservatives:

    http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/what-s-wrong-with-erick-erickson

  • acat

    Member for almost 5 years, but only a pawful of posts, and all of those within the last month or three, and only on this particular race.

    That, plus this tendency to try to drive Red State readers to its’ own blog instead of posting actual thoughts here have this cat wondering…

    Mew

  • mbecker908

    Shadegg and Flake declined to run against McCain. Hayworth is a no account fool who never met a problem that couldn’t be solved with a new gummit spending program who got tossed into the street wholly because the people of his district personally hate his guts.

  • betsyred

    We need your support; thank you.

  • betsyred

    She concludes her TV ad,( which is well done and she’s got a nice TV presence, soft, sensitive voice), but to say, ‘Stand up Colorado??” is weak. ‘Stand Up’ was McCain’s rallying cry at his convention. He propped her up for this Senate run. We need a fresh face, fresh ideas, fresh start with no ties to a losing presidential candidate.

  • betsyred

    Thus far, the nasty campaign tactics have been coming from elected officials that have taken sides for one candidate or another. The average Joe out walking precincts or talking to their neighbors isn’t going negative or attacking. They are talking about platforms and policies. It’s the people that are using the power of their elected positions whether at the national, state, or local govts. that are slinging the mud. Get signed up for Norton’s emails and read what her campaign puts out if you think there’s nothing negative. Buck was recently attacked for having gotten his law degree at Princeton with nothing to substantiate why that’s a bad thing. It’s petty and silly and its happening in counties and towns amongst elected officials, as well. These are the people that are turning off the electorate and making people not want to vote at all. The people entrusted w/ elected office should lead by example, and unfortunately, they are, its just they are leading with a really unbecoming example in some cases.

  • deano64

    Just another troll? Just another Erick hater? You be the judge.

  • AceInTX

    and the scorched earth nature of her campaign is disturbing…and really burns my behind.

    Conservatives get battered endlessly for our supposed lack of loyalty….but increasingly we are seeing RINOS and the McCain types such as those on Norton’s staff going kamikaze on conservatives taking them down after it has become clear they have won the nomination.

    I’ll probably get beaten up by the usual suspects about always attacking Republicans…but how about some consistency here…it’s not Conservatives going on a scorched earth attacks on the likes of Kirk and other moderate to liberal nominees after they’ve won….

    But the McCain types either go on full assault…or switch parties…or endorse the Democrats

    and with that, I’ll duck under the couch and wait for the rotten fruit to start flying my way

  • winthisone

    Marc Holtzman, who destroyed any chance for a Republican win and gave us Ritter, is a major contributor to Jane Norton. Birds of a feather …

  • winthisone

    Norton will not now allow anyone to tape her. At the big 6/29 debate in Colorado Springs, she won’t be able to stop it.

  • deano64

    He seems like a good conservative to me. Hayworth is officially toast with the whole Infomercial thing.

  • winthisone

    Cheri, you continue the lies. Why? Are you desperate?

    One conservative thing Buck has done?

    He computerized the system in Weld County so that all agencies have instant access. That decreased staffing requirements.

    His budget increased by much less than population increased. Your 50% number is a lie and you know it.

  • mbecker908

    Deakin is utterly unknown is running a way distant third. He might be able to get enough McCain protest votes to come in second if JD totally discombobulaates (which won’t surprise me one bit), but he’s not beating McCain.

  • grayfox88

    If Obama was supposed to give Blagojevich a government position for appointing his favorite son Burris to the Senate, what do you think he may have offered Governor Ritter in payment for appointing that imbecile, Michael Bennett to the Senate seat vacated by Ken Salazar? After all you can’t let a good political opportunity to go to waste. Bannett has not thought for himself since he was appointed.

  • deano64

    It’s depressing really.

  • aesthete

    I’d love if Jeff Flake/Jim Sessions ran when McCain retires. My hope is that McCain’s going to hand the torch down to one of those kids when he retires/dies (same difference). Of course, he could always go the other way and endorse his daughter (ugh).

  • Joe_Schmo

    Not sure why you do that, but I concluded your head is fairly thick. :)

    Now then, what the hell is this ducking under the couch and avoiding the rotten fruit throwing? You dealing with some unsaid health issues?

    It would seem important at this time for you to be back on your game as you were in 2008 during the election cycle. I watched you take a ton of baseball bats to the head and fight everybody. Hell, I even jumped in on your side from time to time because it just didn’t seem right that it was Ace against 100 or so…

    You identified RINO’s. They even had a website.

    Suck it up dude, and get back on your game.

  • winthisone

    aestjete. there is one little problem with your contention that both candidates are perfectly conservative.

    Jane Norton supported the biggest tax increase in Colorado history because it was a “necessary” tax. She still defends it! It is a tax that keeps on taxing because it forever destroyed the TABOR base upon which each year’s tax level is based.

    She was helping her boss, Bill Owens. The question is, when John McCain comes calling for one of his liberal votes, where will Norton be?

  • Joe_Schmo

    Most Republicans still think they need to go after the Independents while the Conservatives walked away in droves with the nomination of John McCain. The most wise choice in my opinion would be for the Republicans to move back to the right and pick up the lost Conservatives rather than wasting time trying to pick up the left leaning Independents who they will never get. If they didn’t go for McCain, the Republicans aren’t going to get them. Just a small move to the right picks back up the Conservatives that have left.

  • photog357

    Several months ago, I didn’t know much about either of these two candidates, so I decided to take a look at their web sites. I think I went to Buck’s first, and his stated positions looked fine to my social, fiscal, and national security conservative eyes. And then I went to Norton’s site and was blown out of the water by the depth of her experience and self-education in the realms of what are perhaps the two most significant issues facing our nation these days: healthcare and national security/counter-terrorism. That did it for me.

    Do I dislike that she supported Ref. C? Absolutely. But that is a minor issue in the face of the damaging legislation to our Republic that the increasingly left-leaning Democrats are striving to enact every day. Jane has the education and experience to become a leader in the U.S. Senate in short order. Colorado needs her, and our whole nation needs her.