NRSC Preparing “Rule 11” Jane Norton Coup?

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?

0 Shares

32 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. RedGreen says:

    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.)

  2. One Queer Dude says:

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

  3. Ralphie says:

    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.

  4. DavidThi808 says:

    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.

    • RedGreen says:

      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.

      • DavidThi808 says:

        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.

        • RedGreen says:

          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?

  5. Republican 36 says:

    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.

  6. Leonard Smalls says:

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

  7. ArdentAdmirer2 says:

    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.

  8. Half Glass Full says:

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

  9. schnack says:

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

  10. Retired says:

    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.

  11. charlesn12 says:

    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!!!

    • A-bob says:

      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.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.