CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

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) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

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%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
December 07, 2009 11:14 PM UTC

Jane Norton, Seeking "Tea Party" Support, Calls For Dept. of Ed Abolition

  • 16 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Interesting report from a self-described “Tea Party guy” who had a chance to sit down with GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton recently. Seems he came away happy–will anyone else? Excerpts from the blog Perlstalker’s Ramblings:

I attended a meet and greet with Colorado Senate hopeful Jane Norton. There have been some that have questioned her conservative credentials. It was for that reason that I went to meeting.

There were fifteen or so people where when I arrived (I was a few minutes late), most of whom I recognized from the local Republican party and my Tea Parties. We met around a couple of tables and had a very frank and open discussion…

Mrs. Norton said all the right things regarding small government, low spending and low taxes. One thing I found especially interesting was that she felt that the federal Department of Education was part of the bloat that should be cut. Completely. [Pols emphasis] It was her opinion that individual states should be responsible for education in the state and the federal government should stay out of it.

She said that she is, in no uncertain terms, against cap-and-trade and ObamaCare. She also wants to put a rule in that, like Colorado, federal legislation should be limited to a single topic. It is her hope that such a rule would prevent some of these thousand page monsters that have come out recently. She also said that she is in favor of requiring the federal government to maintain a balanced budget…

The format led to a very candid exchange of views. She was honest with us when she didn’t know about a topic. Asked her about Net Neutrality and she had not heard of it before. She didn’t try to make up something on the spot, she admitted that she didn’t know and listed well as I explained my views on the topic.

I’m not going to say that I’d prefer her over Ken Buck or many others vying for the nomination, but I will say that, based on our conversation yesterday, I could support her as my Senator.

This blogger reports that he “never got to” the question of Norton’s 2005 support for the hated Referendum C, but apparently parroting John Andrews’ oft-voiced desire to abolish the federal Department of Education made enough of an impression for him to forget all about that.

Everybody do take note of what she just signed up to support, though–she’s going to have to start selling to the sane vote sometime, and more than one of these bullet points seem likely to come back and haunt her once she does.

Tweet
Share

Comments

16 thoughts on “Jane Norton, Seeking “Tea Party” Support, Calls For Dept. of Ed Abolition”

  1. Dearest Lt Governor Norton –

    I say this with the deepest respect – after all, as a Republican activist, I want us to beat Bennet/Romanoff, and clearly, you’re one of our best candidates

    In addition, I have a history of knocking on many doors and talking to many activists – I’m no expert, but I would like to think I know the grassroots ‘pulse’

    That said – if you really really really want the Tea Party vote, you need to address your past support of Ref C and D

    Love and peace –

    Ali Hasan

    1. love it! Norton wants Tea Party support when everywhere she goes she talks trash about them. Tea Party people who support her obviously aren’t tea party people.

  2.    Reagan in 1980 was the first of a long line of GOP candidates to call for abolishing to Dept. of Ed (as well as the Dept of Energy).  

      How did that work out for you guys?

      1. we should also shut down state education departments and every local school board, I mean since–assuming, for the sake of argument, that public schools continue to suck.

        2. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. Our public schools are failing the poor and the country and yet we keep trying minor tweaks.

          I come back to the fundamental question – has ED improved things at all? Treasury and the Fed have a track record of being a very positive (albeit not perfect) influence. ED – what do they bring to the equation?

          1. but I went to Fairview High School, and I’m pretty glad the money, mandates, and oversight from the federal Department of Education made that possible.

            Hey, at the very least the DoEd represents a money bag for schools, and I know you have issues with increasing education funding but seriously, do you think slashing funds and money to schools is going to help anything?

            1. Really good school. And yes the money is needed. But I’d like to see it used to better effect. Maybe have it be dollars that follow the kid – and a district must have open enrollment to get the funds.

              I think the big question is not should we keep that money coming, but does ED itself add anything to the mix.

              1. in fact, that question is never raised whenever this issue is raised. The point is not to debate education policy – but to show your feathers. Threatening to gut an entire fed gov department is meant to show cojones, and a level of ideological commitment (which is why she will not repeat this in public).

              2. By ED do you mean the Department of Education, or education in general? I would think it would almost have to be the former, but I just want to make sure I’m reading you right.

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

157 readers online now

Newsletter

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