Notable Links

Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

NRSC Preparing "Rule 11" Jane Norton Coup?

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 17:48:23 PM MDT

The right-leaning Colorado blogs are lit up this afternoon with rumors that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is getting ready to throw its organizational weight behind still-undeclared Senate candidate Jane Norton, effectively invoking their shadowy "Rule 11" to clear the primary field for her. Says one:

Complete Colorado has uncovered evidence of the NRSC registering web domains for Jane Norton, which unfortunately would seem to confirm the rumors...
A well-placed rumor is circulating that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is planning to endorse former lieutenant governor Jane Norton upon her official entry into Colorado's Republican U.S. Senate primary in the next few weeks. I sincerely hope the rumors are unfounded.
The NRSC has no business coming into this race so early in the process to endorse anyone. It wouldn't matter if they endorsed Ken Buck, Ryan Frazier, or even Cleve Tidwell...

We imagine they're "concerned" about the NRSC's rumored actions about as much as a certain phone message made them "concerned" for Scott McInnis' well-being. Somebody should tell these guys that mercenaries don't wear flashy patches and berets anymore--it's kind of obvious.

As for the NRSC shutting down this so-far joke of a primary? Are you surprised or something?

Colorado Pols :: NRSC Preparing "Rule 11" Jane Norton Coup?

Tags: (All Tags)

Share this post:

NRSC Preparing "Rule 11" Jane Norton Coup? | 32 comments

To be fair

Complete Colorado says it has the evidence, so a link to the Drudge look-alike isn't unwarranted:

http://completecolorado.com/no...

(They're also the ones who posted the McInnis voice mail.)

by: RedGreen @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 00:01:53 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

they should

The GOP used that rule in '08 to unify the party behind the de facto Senate candidate with great results!

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 00:10:00 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Who cares?

It doesn't matter if the Republicans clear the field, or how they do it if they do it.

Ritter is an incumbent. An election involving an incumbent is always about the incumbent.

It doesn't matter who the opponent is or how they got there. If the people perceive that Ritter is doing a good job, he'll win. If they perceive that Ritter is doing a bad job, he'll lose.

It's all about the incumbent.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same. Which one will it be? --Joseph V. Paterno

by: Ralphie @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 01:40:53 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

On the nosey

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

BTW, I "adduced" this all by myself, you total fucking assclown.
-Laughing Boy

by: ThillyWabbit @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 01:56:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Um...

The NRSC is the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche

by: twas brillig @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:36:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

lol

by: A-bob @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:43:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Replace Bennet with Ritter

And it still holds true.

by: redstateblues @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 03:06:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yeah, I know

sorry.

Another case of having too many candidates and too many races on the brain, and being too old to keep track of them all. To tell the truth, I'm getting worried about my mental capacity, but that's a whole different post.

OK, let's rephrase.

Bennet is the incumbent. An election involving an incumbent is all about the incumbent.

It doesn't matter who the opponent is or how they got there. If the people perceive that Bennet is doing a good job, he'll win. If they perceive that Bennet is doing a bad job, he'll lose.

It's all about the incumbent.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same. Which one will it be? --Joseph V. Paterno

by: Ralphie @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:51:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Get off my Ralphie! n/t

by: Laughing Boy @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 03:04:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

But, but, but... Dick Wadhams said

that the GOP welcomes a primary.

What is so brain dead about this is that clearing the field for the annointed candidate has been a total & complete disaster for the GOP. As a Dem I'm all in favor of them doing it - but it sure is self-destructive for them.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:54:29 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

A bit of perspective

Neither party has had contested primaries for top-of-the-ticket statewide races in a long time -- Dems "cleared the field" for Ritter, Udall, and Salazar, and it worked out fine.

And both parties had some knock-down primaries in the '90s (Allard-Norton, Strickland-Nichol, Lamm-Romero, Campbell-Lamm-Heath) with mixed results -- some who went on to win, some who didn't.

Your underlying point is sound, though -- Republicans don't seem to do a very good job picking which candidate to anoint lately.

by: RedGreen @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 04:30:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Uh...

We had Obama/Clinton this year. We had Mike Miles on the top of the ballot in the Senate primary. We had Hickenlooper flirting with the idea of Gov and that would have been a killer primary.

And keep in mind that we Dems view the primary as part of the process. We may prefer to not see it happen sometimes, but we don't shut it down.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 14:38:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hickenlooper flirting with the idea of Gov

Yeah, and McInnis flirting with the idea of Sen.

Obama/Clinton wasn't a primary, you must have missed the caucuses. I didn't list all the losing Democratic candidates for Senate and governor who didn't have to face primaries this decade either, but were anointed. The point is, neither party likes primaries when it comes down to it.

I forgot about Miles. Silly me. The Democratic establishment really encouraged that primary, didn't it?

by: RedGreen @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 15:18:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll agree we Dems prefer not to have primaries

but we don't stop them. Nor do we have the party weigh in for one candidate.

ps - Obama/Clinton was a primary - the mechanism is the caucus but the selection is the primary.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 16:04:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If this turns out to be true and Norton runs

the NRSC is going to be very disappointed in the results. She is a nice person but is completely committed to the social/religious conservative agenda which is not a winning formula in Colorado.

by: Republican 36 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 03:13:55 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Are you kidding me?

The majority in this state is clearly demanding leadership that will control every aspect of their personal lives while eliminating all government services (except the morality police).

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 03:17:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

She is a nice person but is completely committed to the social/religious conservative agenda

Exactly.....Jane Norton is simply Bob Schaffer with a vagina.

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 17:50:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Big Bad John

Not entirely surprising coming from the same strategic geniuses in Cornyn's office who cooked this up:

by: Leonard Smalls @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 03:20:29 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The NRSC must have polled

If they are moving to support Jane Norton they must have polled and she came out as the strongest candidate by a wide margin. Norton is not as bright as Bennet but she is a far better public speaker and much more charismatic.

by: ArdentAdmirer2 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 05:08:32 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Poll who?

The vast majority of people in this state have no idea who any of them are.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 14:39:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes. They did.

Norton's in. And she'll get no primary.

by: It's Me @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 21:38:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Registering web names?

Darn, wish someone else had registered all the good ones first!

"Why not do the right thing for the American people, even though it's not exactly what we want." - Speaker Boehner

by: Half Glass Full @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 05:28:36 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Question

Is this the same Norton who was Secretary of the Interior?

by: schnack @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 05:38:59 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

But most people will probably think that. GALE Norton was at interior.

"It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions."
- Harvey Milk

by: J-Rock @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 05:43:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Gee

I thought she was the one who broke Ali's jaw in the 73 title fight.

I kid, I kid

by: Danny the Red (hair) @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 14:49:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

no, that was Jane's RINO twin at Interior

Nor is Jane's husband the owner of the car dealership in Aurora.
Jane's husband, Mike, represented the Trailhead Foundation folks when they sued Marc Holtzman in '06. Anyone know if they ever collected on their award of costs against Holtzy?

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 17:53:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I know but I'm not telling...

by: It's Me @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 21:37:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Gale was no RINO

at least at dancing to the corporate puppet masters in their quest to rob the public of its assets.

"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'

by: ClubTwitty @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 01:47:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

She would be the first Woman Senator in a States History

That will win large tracks of votes, much like Senator Salazar was the first Hispanic.
On it's face I could see why the NRSC is so excited.

by: Retired @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 12:55:26 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Of course

As the McCain/Palin campaign would tell you, there is no guarantee the tracks of votes will be large.

by: colorado76 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 14:34:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why did the State of Colorado re-elect Dick Wadhams?

Why did the State of Colorado re-elect DickWad HAMS as State GOP Chairman in the first place...he is allowing this Jane Norton Coup to take place cause his long time friend Karl Rove did this type of thing in his early years as a chair of the College Republicans in the year 1973...disrupt the convention...and only allowed the top dog - who at that time was George Herbert Walker Bush...H.W. Sr. for short.

- DickWad - like Rove, does NOT TRUST the voters/people...that is who he is...that is what he did last year in the State Convention too!!

Wake UP GOP in the state of CO!!!

by: charlesn12 @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 13:54:30 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I was wondering the same thing when the results came in

and the shock was greater when Stone only got 20%...of course his speech sucked compared to Wadhams which was a major part of the voting.

They elected the Vice-Chair based off of the speech which was amazing, absolutly no grass-roots or anything, just blew the crowd away and won.

by: A-bob @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 22:25:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon