Norton Welcomes Obama With Ad Blitz

(Ah good…now the campaign ads start. – promoted by Middle of the Road)

The day before President Obama visits Denver to attend fundraisers for Sen. Michael Bennet, Republican Senate frontrunner Jane Norton unveiled an ad campaign today aimed at tying Bennet to the Obama administration’s deficit spending. The ad doesn’t mention Bennet. Here’s the TV version:

The ad’s script and Norton’s deficit proposals follow.

Here’s the ad’s transcript, from the Norton campaign, though the TV ad released doesn’t have an announcer but displays those words in titles. There’s a radio version that’s almost identical.

ANNOUNCER: The President’s coming to Denver and Colorado needs to send him a message.

JANE NORTON: Mr. President, as a candidate you came to Denver and promised to “go through the federal budget…eliminating programs that no longer work…”

You’ve done just the opposite – massive spending and debt.

It’s ruining our economy and it’s wrong.

Mr. President, you should pledge to balance the budget or else decline to seek re-election. That’d be change we could believe in.

I’m Jane Norton. I approved this message. Let’s Stand Up, Colorado.

“Let’s Stand Up, Colorado,” appears to be the Norton slogan.

Here’s what the Norton campaign proposes:

– Cut discretionary spending by 20 percent and then freeze it for three years. This shouldn’t be hard to accomplish – all it would require is a return to 2008 levels.

– Use what’s left of the stimulus and TARP money to pay down the debt. It will show the American people you’re serious about fiscal responsibility.

– End your quest for a government healthcare takeover.

– Then cut taxes on small businesses. Ronald Reagan showed that it works. When small businesses can create jobs through a lower tax burden, tax receipts actually go up.

– End earmarks.

– Finally, do what you promised. Go through your budget line by line and eliminate wasteful programs until the federal government is not spending a dime more than it makes.

What say you, Polsters? Does Norton have her economics right? Is it a good idea to slash federal spending and suspend the stimulus while the country is still getting out of a recession?



85 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ThillyWabbit says:

    her facts would have to be right.

    What she and her fellow wingnuts constantly fail to mention is that the jump in discretionary spending was a result of putting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on-budget rather than pretending they don’t cost any money. Not to mention making the AMT fix permanent rather than doing it off-budget and kicking the can down the road year-to-year.

    Obama’s fiscal policy had to start with making the books honest. Norton should start her criticism on a basis of reality, not the fantasy budgets Bush pushed through for 8 years.

  2. raymond1 says:

    (1) Declaring that “20% of spending” should be cut is not a proposal, because it doesn’t say WHAT you want to cut.

    (2) The “tax cuts raise revenue” line is crazy BS; the Reagan tax cuts produced produced huge deficits, not surpluses — hence Bush I’s and Clinton’s need to raise taxes to cut the deficits, which did work.

    (3) Abandoning the health plan wouldn’t cut the deficit; the nonpartisan CBO scoring is that the health plan would CUT the deficit.

    To sum up: she offers a mix of a totally unspecified demand for cuts (point 1) and things that would increase rather than decrease the deficit (points 2 & 3).  She’s our Palin, just with less charisma.

  3. scobb99 says:

    While I can’t say I agree with all of the policies she advocates, I do agree with the general sentiment that Bennet is nothing more than a “yes-man” for the Obama administration. The change we were promised two years ago was a farce and this administration has fallen far short of living up to its potential.

    All in all I think it is a good ad. She is absolutely right to call out the President on his broken promises. While I’m not a Republican, I can say that Norton is moving the right direction here.

    • raymond1 says:

      scobb99: Way to say nothing specific, but say it with feeling nonetheless; you sure have the right candidate!

      • scobb99 says:

        I’m not a Norton supporter. I said that I think she’s right in calling out the President on his broken promises, but maybe I do need to be more specific.

        We’re still racking up record deficits, and there seems to be no end to irresponsible spending. I think her proposals are reasonable.

        Cutting discretionary spending is going to be necessary, even the Obama administration thinks so. The details are likely in the works and I suspect that a more detailed plan will be unveiled soon. Regardless of the vague nature of this proposal, she has the right idea: balancing the budget.

        Forgive me for not believing that you’re an expert economist, but you refuted all of her claims without providing any ounce of proof (with the exception of the CBO figures, as they are publicly available). As far as I’m concerned, you might as well be making things up.  

        • RedGreen says:

          There isn’t a responsible economist alive who doesn’t believe government needs to ramp up spending during a recession, when tax revenues are falling. You’re in denial if you don’t think this country has recently gone through the most severe economic downturn in decades, and that it will cost us plenty to get out of it.

          And, as Thilly points out, the primary reason the Obama deficits seem so large is that the Bush administration didn’t honestly account for its deficits.

          Norton’s proposals are exactly what caused the double-dip recession in the ’30s — is this really what you’re endorsing?

        • raymond1 says:

          The only two facts I gave w/out a cite are (a) that Obama’s health plan would cut the deficit (which you conceded I need nto cite because it’s public info), and (b) that Reagan ballooned the deficit.

          Here’s a cite for (b), also from the CBO:

  4. BICora says:

    Of course not.

    She’s running against Obama.  Later she’ll run against the D party, esp Reid, Pelosi and whichever becomes poster child for socialists this summer.

    Only if she still trails then will she run against a named opponent.

    • scobb99 says:

      Last I saw she was up almost 15 points on Bennet.

      • RedGreen says:

        Your polling math is as disingenuous as your deficit math. She’s up 14 points in a Rasmussen poll. Heck, why not say she’s up “almost” 20 points?  

        • scobb99 says:

          Especially because the numbers don’t exist yet.

          • RedGreen says:

            she’s proposing a hypothetical. If running against Obama isn’t enough, she’ll run against Bennet. It’s not that hard to grasp.

            • scobb99 says:

              I’m proposing that using language that counts her out (ie. if she still trails) is ridiculous. This is going to be a tough race for Bennet to win. I still am struggling to understand how running against Bennet isn’t inherently a race against the Obama administration given Bennet’s voting record. Nobody here can seem to explain that to me.

              • RedGreen says:

                more people know who Obama is, and have formed an opinion about him, than Bennet. Few know how often Bennet has voted with Obama’s position. So of course Norton will run against Obama now, because otherwise no one would know what the hell she was talking about. Over time, she’ll try to tie Bennet more directly to Obama and hope Obama is unpopular enough for that to work. These things take time to penetrate the public consciousness, especially when only die hard partisans are paying attention, and they’re paying attention to their primaries. OK?

                • scobb99 says:

                  Not for long. You don’t seem to be understanding my point. The fact is that Bennet has voted with Obama and the Democrats over 90% of the time. This means that running against him, is more or less a race against the President and his agenda. Ok?

                  • RedGreen says:

                    but Jane Norton’s doing two things with this ad. She’s taking on Obama, which raises her stature. If she was just haranguing Bennet, who is about as well known as Norton is, what good would that do now? This is an ad to bolster Norton among Republican voters, so going after Obama yields her the most benefit now. Of course she’ll make the point that Bennet has voted with Obama, we’ll be hearing that a lot this summer. But it would be a waste of money now.

                  • ThillyWabbit says:

                    Because over 90% of the votes in the Senate happen by unanimous consent, not recorded votes.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      wants to Stand Up to Republican senators?  

                    • scobb99 says:

                      That probably wasn’t the best stat to use, but the fact remains that every major policy the Obama administration has proposed Bennet has supported. Most recently he voted to end a filibuster on an Obama nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker. Bennet’s vote not only showed us that he is firmly in the Obama administration’s pockets, but organized labor’s pockets as well.  

                    • RedGreen says:

                      That’s insane. Obama won the election — resoundingly — and Democrats won big majorities in both houses of Congress. They get the right to govern. That includes appointing nominees Republicans might not appoint, were they in power. Bennet’s cloture vote shows he’s in the pockets of voters, who elected his party to run things.  

                    • raymond1 says:

                      Scobb, walk me through the logic:

                      (1) Why does the mere fact that a Senator agrees with the President on a nominee, means that he’s in the President’s “pocket”?

                      (2) Why does the mere fact that unions also support that nominee mean the senator is in a union’s “pocket”?

                      By your logic, Norton is in Mitch McConnell’s “pocket” because she agrees with McConnell on health care. In fact, Norton is in the insurance companies’ “pockets” for the same reason!  Boy, it sure is fun to emptily imply corruption (“….in his pocket”) by declaring guilt by association!

                    • SheepskinStrutt says:

                      was implying corruption; he/she can correct me if I’m wrong. I think he’s pointing out that because Bennet has strong backing and dalliance with both the Admin and organized labor, it’s strategically a good idea for Norton to attack Bennet as an Obama sycophant.  

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      he should hire you because you said it a whole lot better.

                    • SheepskinStrutt says:

                      Sometimes it just takes a rewording; I have a track record of doing the same exact thing.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      He should hire you. Living proof that the stimulus package is working. 🙂

                  • SheepskinStrutt says:

                    is running on what has been the success of the GOP so far in the off-election years; running against an administration over individual Dem candidates.  From a political name-recognition standpoint, it’s also a heck of a lot easier to assail the Admin.

          • BICora says:

            I was trying to say that of course this ad doesn’t mention Bennet, Norton is going to campaign against Obama and the D party until or unless she gets behind.

            If she never trails, she’ll campaign against Obama and the D’s right up until election day.

            If she gets behind, and is still behind come summer- then, but only then, will she bother to campaign directly against Bennet.

            • RedGreen says:

              and I hope I didnt’ garble your meaning too much responding to scobb. But of course, the NRSC will be lobbing grenades at Bennet even when Norton isn’t, probably starting this summer.  

              • BICora says:

                but the NRSC will get busier when we have a more clear nominee.

                I mean, it would realy hurt them if they focused on issues from one and not the other but then the other one won ’cause they are sooo different on the issues.

                Could be the NRSC isn’t planning an issues based assault.

                • RedGreen says:

                  on a regular basis. True, it isn’t costing them anything, but they issue statements and e-mail blast about him all the time. They mostly mention Romanoff when it’s at the expense of Bennet.

  5. indipol says:

    I finally figured it out!!  Jambalaya = Jane Norton.  It’s so obvious from the first 3 seconds of Jane’s sassy “on no you dih-int!!” head motions when she’s trying to dress down BO.  

  6. sufimarie says:

    Why will she do it? Shouldn’t she have done that already?

    Tell us Jane, which programs no longer work and tell us all of them you think no longer work. You’re not doing much these days so you should have the time.  

  7. redstateblues says:

    Is that she supported Referendum C, which removed the spending caps that were put in place by TABOR. Even if she was just doing her good duty as Lite Guv under Owens, it was still the right thing to do at the time, and it was good fiscal policy.

    Plus, Obama has already made clear the plans to freeze non-discretionary spending–despite many Democrats’ concerns–in 2011. That’s already going to help curb the deficit more than Norton’s mysterious 20% across the board cuts. What would you cut, Jane Norton? If you want to cut discretionary spending in addition to non-discretionary spending, then it’s not just your buddy John McCain’s plan of cutting pork barrell projects (what was it he said during the debates, let’s cut $20 million? Big whoop) then which military projects would you be willing to cut?

    When one party is telling you what you want to hear, and another is telling you the hard truth, it’s time to wake up and smell the political opportunism. Jane Norton’s plan isn’t real–it’s just politics as usual.

  8. DavidThi808 says:

    This is a giant improvement over that trainwreck of her announcement video. It’s well done, she comes across well, and it’s a reasonable message by political ad standards.

    Yes we on the left can say “yes but” – it will work for people in the middle.

  9. OneEyedOwl says:

    Norton is insensitive to paraplegics.

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.