Norton Reconsidering Senate Bid?

Jane Norton is not a RINO.

She is a right-wing social/religious conservative. Make no mistake about it.  

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:14:15 PM UTC

Referendum C

Made "RINOs" out of lots of those, didn't it?

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:33:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In Ms. norton's case, I don't berlieve it did.

Superficially it may look that way, but at that point in her career, she was Gov. Owens' lieutenant governor and more or less had to go along with him when he supported Ref. "C." In her heart of hearts, she is a soical/religious conservative and fits right in with Schultheis, Renfroe and the others of that ilk. She is certainly more polished than those two but she believes what they believe.

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:46:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As does her husband...

...who, after all, seems to call a lot of shots.  Doesn't he?  

---

by: It's Me @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:56:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nevertheless

The Republican base is certainly hacked off about her, and Referendum C is at the top of their stated reasons. You're pretty astute--what else do you think is going on?

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:58:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think this all adds up to the conclusion, the Republican Party in Colorado

simply doesn't have any "A" team candidates to run for the U.S. Senate next year. None of the people either running now or who are expected to run (i.e. Norton, Wiens) are first string politicians or campaigners.

The intellectual base left the party over the past four years, leaving a group of activists and potential candidates who have a very difficult time justifying why they want to either run for office or wield executive or legislative power because in the end, they don't believe government should exist. For example, look at Messrs. Penry and Gardner who obviously want to climb to higher offices. When the legislature took up the bill concerning fee increases to repair 126 bridges statewide, they opposed it. Those 126 bridges still need to be repaired, even if they win their respective races but both of them want to play a shell game by moving money around (i.e. Amendment 52) last year to make it look like they are addressing a problem while ignoring or exacerbating another one. Republicans are no longer capable of ever admitting additional revenues are required to fund programs. That is simply not allowed and forbidden by ironclad party ideology. When a political party paints itself into a corner like that, it makes it impossible to address the real policy problems that exist in the real world.

At that point, the party must come up with diversions like Congresswoman Bachman yelling that if we pass healthcare refore it will mean the end of freedom. When you peel back the onion, she won't even admit there is a problem with our health care system which, if she did, would by logic mean maybe we should change our public policy and do something about it, but for those who control the Republican Party such an admission is forbidden because there shouldn't be any public policy. That makes it impossible for the party to deal with reality and in the end makes it very difficult to win elections.  

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 17:13:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great analysis

especially that first paragraph. Thanks for your consistent, unwavering insight into this topic R36.

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 17:15:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you.

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 23:00:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Roads and bridges

Sure, Gardner and Penry may have vocally opposed FASTER (the bridge bill you mention in your second paragraph), but the bill passed. Just for clarification.

"Oh Lord, are there really people starving still?"

---

by: Littletonian @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 23:01:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ritter, Udall and Bennet hardly are 'first string politicians'

We won't know who the first stringers are until the campaign gets underway.

The first part of the campaign is the money derby. He who raises the gold runs. Those who turn up fools gold fold.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:19:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was listening to KOA the other day

no clue who was hosting, but they were very disappointed that the GOP had chosen to try to clear the field for Norton. He was upset that they would try to do it so a "moderate" could run instead of a "true conservative". He also went on to say that John McCain is one of the worst leaders they have, and that every piece of bipartisan legislation he has crafted has harmed Republicans, so that puts a little context in where he stands on purity.

But he seemed convinced that trying to avoid a primary was bad for the GOP because it marginalized the grassroots, and because sticking a "moderate" out there was a mistake and they should be pushing further to the right. So, even though she might not actually be a moderate, the far-right certainly sees her as one.

At any rate, I expect Jane Norton to slowly start to distance herself from Refs C and D and whatever other policies of Owens' that weren't conservative enough for the far-right.

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 15:16:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Schultheis?

Are you saying it's possible that she also believes AIDS is a good thing for unwed mothers and their babies?

I mean, I don;t know all the logic of right wing talking points, but that doesn't feel very pro-life.

---

by: MADCO @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 19:35:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It used to be

That Colorado Pols was sort of balanced and had insight as to what was really going on on the Republican side.  This site has moved so far left because of the determined work of a knucklehead in Boulder that it has now have lost its edge.  Come back Jason, come back.

Nobody in the GOP thinks of Jane Norton as a RINO.  She is socially conservative. They just don't want DC to shove someone down their throats.  

---

by: guesswho @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 15:20:47 PM UTC

Totally.

That's why the rightwing blogs call Norton a "pro-tax candidate."

http://www.peoplespresscollect...

That's what redstateblues heard on the radio too, "running a moderate." It's the talking point from last week, is it a problem now or something?

Are you sure the problem isn't that Pols has too much "insight?"

---

by: bullshit! @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 15:32:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Providence couldn't be that generous, could it?

May as well just have everybody but Cleve Tidwell drop out and save us the suspense.

---

by: ohwilleke @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 15:39:37 PM UTC

As I said before

It's not clear she has the drive to actually run and so a contested primary will cause her to decline.

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

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 16:15:23 PM UTC

If Norton can't handle a contested primary, she won't be ready for Bennet

Norton needs a contested primary to prove she is a good campaigner.

If she doesn't prove herself in the race for the nomination, potential contributors will sit on their hands because, as noted above, she's not really known as a campaigner or winner.

Does anyone think she has proved her campaigning skills to the activists and contributors?

---

by: Another skeptic @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:24:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RNC's Norton mix-up

Perhaps the RNC pursued the wrong Norton as Jane can't muster enough assets to fill the square hole of the Palin-Sisterhood mold for elected office in 2010. However, "Drill-baby-drill" Gale Norton is another matter.....

---

by: WestSloper @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 18:39:10 PM UTC

I was wondering why Gale didn't give it another try

Is she considered too libertarian for the theocrats in the GOP?

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 21:07:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

Too crooked, I think.  Isn't she having some ethics problems?

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 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:04:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gale's honest but was tainted by a crooked Interior culture

I think.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:26:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you're saying she was oblivious?

Gee, that's a good attribute in a Senator...

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

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:43:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]