President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 13, 2010 10:21 PM UTC

Norton Gives Dem "Tracker" Bum's Rush

  • 64 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Looks like all this not-so-flattering video of Senate candidate Jane Norton courting the “Tea Party” movement, from her “Obama cares more about terrorists rights than you” zinger to “loving the passion” of attendees who say President Obama is a Muslim who wants to ‘throw babies out with the garbage’–and a new gold nugget from Norton we’ll turn to in a moment–anyway, somebody in the campaign finally realized that this footage making its way on to national TV, and accumulating for future attack ads was, you know, a bad thing. The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reports:

Norton has barred the Dem tracker who’s been trailing her with a video recorder from taping any more of her events, Dem sources familiar with the situation tell me.

Norton, one of a handful of candidates competing for the GOP nomination, seems to be fully embracing the Tea Party brigage. She most recently earned national renown for sitting silently by while one voter called Obama a “Muslim” and another said “idiot” Obama wanted to let babies die by the side of the road.

Norton also has said that Obama cares more about protecting terrorists’ rights than protecting the lives of Americans. She’s praised the “Tea Party movement” and the “9/12 groups.”

All these Norton statements were videotaped by the Dem tracker who feeds material to the DSCC, and all went national. As a result, Dem sources say, Norton’s campaign is now forbidding him from videotaping any of her events, and has even kicked him out on at least one occasion.

It gets better. After the tracker was forbidden from videotaping Norton at an event earlier this month, the tracker secretly recorded it with a small audio recorder. And it paid off: There’s now audio of Norton suggesting she doesn’t think the Federal government should be involved in health care at all…

And yes, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, you can listen to Jane Norton agree that “the federal government has no place in health care” right here. For those of you keeping score, that’s Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Education Norton says should be ‘abolished.’

There are two ways to look at this story about the “tracker,” as always: you can (sort of) commend Norton’s campaign for having the presence of mind, however belatedly, to stanch the steady bleed-out of her credibility as she willingly both asserts and assents to fringe “Tea Party” lunacy that no responsible public official should publicly endorse. Or, perhaps she just doesn’t want what she has to do to placate the extremists, who maybe she doesn’t agree with but believes she must win over to prevail this November, used against her with the not-crazy majority of voters.

Neither of those possibilities makes Norton look very good, but you can certainly understand why, either way, they don’t want it on camera anymore.

Comments

64 thoughts on “Norton Gives Dem “Tracker” Bum’s Rush

  1. This is just a nightmare for them.  So she is afraid that people will report on what she says in public????  Frankly, they should pay to go to all her fundraisers too so that they can see what she says there.  I can only imagine.  Not ready for prime-time.

    1. I mean, has she not heard of the Internet or Youtube?

      Lord, I remember when people claimed she was a more moderate member of the Republican Party. What a load of crap that turned out to be.

  2. She has to clear the field to be the candidate, but then she spends all of her time trying to court the Tea Partiers. If they were so important to her, then why was the Republican establishment so worried about a primary? She could have easily killed in a primary saying this kind of stuff.

    I thought the whole point of clearing the field was to make the candidate more palatable to the middle by avoiding any inter-party dirt getting thrown around.

    Seems like she’s so eager to get the fringe votes that she may end up sacrificing the middle.

  3. What you say anywhere you are saying everywhere. You no longer get to deliver messages that go only to a set audience. And trying to operate that way just makes you look bad to everyone.

    It also brings up the key question for Norton – what does she stand for? Because if she wants to keep this message to the right hidden, that leads to the assumption that she will have a different message in the general election.

    Which leads to the key question – once in office which Jane Norton would we get?

    ps – Lt. Gov. Norton, if you are interested in getting what you stand for out there for everyone – my invitation to interview remains open.

  4. “…Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Education…”

    TRICARE, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and FEHB,  

    She should be given a chance to explain.

    1. a few thousand times over since she’s been campaigning for a while. I’m afraid that what we see with Norton is exactly what we get if we vote for her…not in a million years–she’s just too radical for Colorado.

      1. perhaps these comments were taken out of context.

        Perhaps she’d like to live blog right her eon ColoradoPols.com.

        We could submit some questions in advance. Some could just come up in the discussion.

        1. Is your comment just snark and I’m not getting it or were you actually serious? I mean, are you really suggesting that these are all out of context? Have you watched the videos? ‘Cause they seem pretty in context to me

              1. She needs more air time, not less.

                Get her in front of some cameras and voters. Ya know, with the real people of Colorado.  There could be some of those on a blog.

                1. Her poll numbers will drop like a rock.  And her handlers know that.  This candidate has never really campaigned for anything.  The keep calling her Lt. Gov. as if that means something.  What it means is that Bill Owens selected her to run on his ticket.  Just the same way that McCain picked Palin.  She’s just and inexperienced and just as partisan and just as unqualified as Palin.  Now that it’s showing, her staff is trying to hide her.  How’s that going to work guys during the general election.

            1. I think it is the worst buzz-word that has ever been invented and the worst idea ever.  You put 100 US Senators who all have egos the size of Mt. Everest into a body and expect it to function when everything is “transparent?”  What a crock.  Nothing is happening because all 100 (some better than others) are out bloviating because they can.  Bad idea.  Bad for America.

        2. Norton live blogging here is just below Bill Ritter suddenly having a change of heart and jumping back in the gubernatorial race on the list of likely future events in Colorado politics.

            1. Ken Salazar should be courted to change his mind and run against Hick in a primary. It’s not unprecedented — Salazar had already endorsed Rutt Bridges when he changed his mind to run for the Senate seat in 2004. If only Udall had stayed in that race, maybe Salazar could have been bloodied enough to actually win.

  5. At least the tracker didn’t get threatened and assaulted by union members like at one of Bennet’s meet and greets.

    Sorry, but nobody is outdoing the Dems on ‘secrecy’ right now.  See: health care.

          1. You think the Union thugs asked him in between tea services if he would pretty please not mind filming Bennet’s weaseling on card check at a union hall?

            1. I think the guy is a fucking pantywaist throwing a big stink over nothing. Poor wittle guy all scared by the big mean union guy (ooooooooh, scary union guys strike again.) Does that old chestnut ever grow old for your party?

              Hey, you asked.

        1. They swore at him and in front of him. And he called 911.

          But wait, Adams county eventually dismissed the case because he wouldn’t or couldn’t testify. Huh?

      1. Seriously, I went to the Jeffco Republican Assembly last year for a friend who was running for office.  The assembly was dominated by “conservatives” not “Republicans,” the pre-cursors to the tea party.  Most were carrying.  I was most uncomfortable.  So were many of the “real” security team from the Sheriff’s office.  These guys should be checked at the door.

    1. See my opinion on the Senate above.  I think transparency is a terrible idea.  But, here, a candidate is hiding from the voters she needs to be elected.  No important or momentous legislation is being affected by that.  Only the poor voters of Colorado. In my view, if this continues, she’ll get the reputation for hiding and that won’t set well with voters.

  6. Imagine what the Tea baggers would say if Sen Bennet or Mayor Hickenlooper barred them from events.

    They sure are patriots and believe in the constitution of the United States.

    I’m being facetious.

    .

  7. a lot of campaign events for all the Republican primary runners, I can say I’ve never seen anyone kicked out of a meeting because of videotaping, neither Norton’s or any of the rest of them. I remember actually being at Norton’s event where the tracker supposedly had his issue; she actually introduced him. So much for no voice.

    I think if we put ourselves in Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, would a Democratic candidate allow for the same to happen? Pro-life protesters, as rude and obnoxious as they can be, are routinely booted and banned from both candidate forums and meetings. Even non-disruptive pro-lifers and supporters of traditional marriage can be booed, derided, and forced to leave. If a campaign decides to let wackos or “indy” dilettantes in, fine. If they decide to keep them out, fine. It’s their prerogative to decide whether or not they want to run the risk of being misconstrued.

    I think some people are all-the-more eager to write off every Republican as a tea-party hack and Fed-hating conspiracy theorist whenever any controversy ensues.

    Also, as a college student, I’ve been asked to leave classes and seminars over asking politically incorrect or (deemed) inexpedient questions or for filming, and as annoying as it is, I think that even if this scenario happened as stated by this obviously “truth-to-power”-speaking fellow, any campaign has that right.

    1. You’re wrong about the school.  If it’s a public institution, it can’t kick you out for expressing your opinion.  It it does, you should call the ACLU and sue them.

      As for the campaigns, they can kick anyone out that they want, they are not a government agency and therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them.

      As for your comparisons, not even close to the same thing.  People heckling or being booed or derided are not the same thing as a guy standing quietly in the back of the room video taping an event.  Here’s the reality, folks will think they can’t trust Jane Norton if she doesn’t just shake it off.  They will think she is hiding something (she is given the above remarks) and they will think she is telling different people different things (which she also is since her campaign is madly trying to paint her as a moderate) and they will think that she is weak for not standing up to these nuts (which she is, just based upon past experience).  If she can’t be a candidate and do the things she is required to do (stay to the script, look pretty and shake hands) then she doesn’t deserve to win and she won’t.

      1. “expressing” his opinion, if he’s being asked to leave a class, Craig. And if he’s interrupting a class he isn’t enrolled in, a professor has every damned right to ask him to leave and call security and have him removed if he won’t do it voluntarily.  

        1. Actually, I was asked to leave a class because I said the neo-realist idea of providing Iran with nuclear weapons to balance Israel in a MAD scenario was ridiculous and stupid, and that my professor was being an idiot. That got me booted.

          I also was nearly asked to leave the class after quoting the infamous “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the unfortunate fact that most terrorists are Muslim”, which is actually a quote from an American Islamic scholar and not right-wing hyberbole.

          Yeah, I’ve never interrupted a class that I wasn’t enrolled in, although the SDS chapter of my school has done so whenever Dick Lamm speaks.

      2. on private and public campi, but who’s counting?

        Me calling the ACLU for help is like a prostitute performing a citizens’ arrest on a cop for indecent exposure; it makes no sense.

        I think its presumptuous to also assume that a campaign would let obvious opposition members film them for the sole purpose of splicing and combining AV.  

        As for comparisons, those are some of many; unsupportive videotapers at the Prop 8 protest last year faced quite a lot of harassment just for standing quietly in the back of the crowd. I agree-hecklers are not equitable to being quiet in a room, but both can result in being booted.

        I think the Norton campaign is probably pretty disinterested in answering accusations from rogue birkenstock, so shaking it off is probably what will happen; sometimes ignoring it does actually make it go away.

        Just a sidenote: are you seriously saying that the First Amendment only applies to government agencies? I sure hope it was just a slip-up.

        Finally, I think as the primary shrinks, we’ll be able to see more and more of Norton; that should provide a lot more context on her beliefs and ideology. She’ll have ample opportunity to either prove your assumptions as true or false. I’m confident in the former.

        1. Finally, I think as the primary shrinks, we’ll be able to see more and more of Norton; that should provide a lot more context on her beliefs and ideology. She’ll have ample opportunity to either prove your assumptions as true or false. I’m confident in the former.

          Is that while she has primary opposition she is unwilling to state anything on the record? That does not speak well for her standing up for the right wing once she is elected.

        2. That’s not a slip-up, that’s a fact.  Private entities and persons can try to shut you up.  If you say something that your private sector boss doesn’t like, s/he can fire you.  If your private university doesn’t like what you’re saying, it can kick you out.

          1. So freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of petition, and freedom of speech only applies to govt. agencies? Your later point about firing makes relative sense, but to say that the 1st Amendment only applies if one is affiliated with govt is lunacy. Getting fired does not mean that your First Amendment rights have been violated in the first place.

            So, if the First Amendment only applies to govt. agencies, is freedom of religion only restricted to federally-run churches? Damn, hurts your faux Jeffersonianism, does it not?

            If the First Amendment only applies to govt. agencies, is the SEIU the only brotherhood that can petition the govt?

            1. PERA hopeful is saying that only the gov’t has the potential to violate a person’s First Amendment rights.  A private person or entity can’t violate another private person’s First Amendment rights because the First Amendment is a limitation on the gov’t’s powers and no one else’s.  You should not have skipped 10th grade civics!

              1. ; I’m trying to make a point.

                Trust me, I didn’t skip 10th grade civics, or any civics class, for that matter. I’m fully aware of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general, and how it applies.  

            2. The First Amendment says (read along now, class): “Congress shall make no law….”  That means the government can’t abridge your free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.  Private individuals and entities can and do abridge those rights.  

              We may be meaning two different things; it sounds like you thought I meant that only government agencies have free speech rights.  That’s not what I meant; what I meant was that only government is prohibited from abridging those rights.

              I don’t have the foggiest idea what your remark about SEIU means.

              1. all this would happen: let’s look at your quote: “they are not a government agency and therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them.”

                Now it is most definitively true that we were referring to two separate things; both the power of government and the role of individual persons. I thoroughly understand the point you are making.

                Here’s the thing: if I splice your statement “they are not a government agency and therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them.” and attribute it without context, you sound like a lunatic because it makes the inference that First Amendment rights are truncated to the point at which they only apply to government and not citizenry.

                Context is important, children, and such is true in politics. Anyone’s statements can be maladjusted to fit.

                1. That “all this would happen” and you would have this golden opportunity to demonstrate that a) you don’t know your First Amendment very well, and b) you can doggedly insist that your misinterpretation of someone’s comment must have been the intent of that person, despite protestation and thorough explantation to the contrary.

                  Thus, this comment of yours is classic unintended irony:

                  Anyone’s statements can be maladjusted to fit.

                  SheepskinStrutt, you are, among other variations of lunacy, a Master of the Ill-fitted Maladjustment.

                  Congratulations.

                  1. overestimating your understanding of the points I was trying to make; I suppose Devil’s Advocate falls on deaf ears this time.

                    Actually, I do know my 1st Amendment fairly well, though I’m always learning more; if you’d like to start a thread on the dichotomy between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, I’d be happy to destroy you.

                    Your insistence that I am the “Master of the Ill-fitted Maladjustment” is quite cute; did you think that up yourself, or did Abbie Hoffman help you with that one?

                    1. That so many on this blog had, um, “difficulty” understanding the, um, “points” you were trying to make likely has an explanation that can be found along a continuum that includes:

                      A) all of us being incredibly and uniformly dense, to

                      B) your failure to clearly and unambiguously make your “points.”

                      The more parsimonious answer is likely to be found closer to point B than to point A.

                      Meanwhile, feel free to write a diary that will allow you to happily destroy me. I’ll let you know when you’ve been successful.  

            3. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              The only thing the First Amendment guarantees is that Congress won’t make a law against speech. It doesn’t say anything about how you and I having to listen to each other’s opinions respectfully.

              Don’t conservatives know anything?

        3. It is not clear to me that the plural of campus is campi.

          The word seems to an American English word from Latin and not Italiano.

          While I am the first guy to say scenari and not scenarios, I am not sure that campi is correct.

          Can you provide references?

          thanks,

          dave

  8. that trackers come with big statewide races.  If she’s having an event at a private home or a fundraiser where you need to pay to get in, she can keep a tracker out.  But public events are just that…public.  Even guys with cameras have to be allowed in.

    She also needs to take into consideration what the other candidates (Ken Buck?) are doing with trackers.  She looks like she is hiding something if she bars trackers and the others don’t.

    And her management team and her press team really need to talk a bit more.  Having this story come out the very same day she takes a hit at Michael Bennett for not pushing for more “Open and honest government deliberations” is both amateurish and stupid: http://janenortonforcolorado.c

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

200 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!