Damned If You Do…

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is busily picking apart the recent interview of Senate candidate Jane Norton on the Fox News Channel–and we think they’ve got an interesting angle here, though not the one you see at first glance:

Colorado families struggling with unemployment and economic challenges got their answer yesterday on if Senate candidate Jane Norton would support a job creation bill – a resounding No.  Yesterday, Norton responded to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s request for her position on the bipartisan jobs bill, which passed the Senate yesterday on a bipartisan basis, and that promises to bring many good jobs to Colorado and over one million new jobs across the country.  Despite the bill’s promise of creating new jobs, Norton told Fox News that she would have voted to kill the bill had she been in the Senate because a bill that will create 1 million new jobs was “too small.” [Pols emphasis]

…The HIRE Act, which Norton came out in opposition to yesterday, has four key provisions, including a payroll tax holiday for businesses to encourage hiring, additional funds to help small businesses expand, an extension of the Highway Trust Fund to allow more infrastructure investments, and an expansion of the Build America Bonds program to allow states finance infrastructure projects.  According to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Norton also opposed, created over 2 million jobs last year, has boosted the US economy by 3.5%, and has lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1%.  The CBO projects that the stimulus will have an even greater impact in 2010.

As you can see, the main emphasis from the DSCC is that Norton opposes this and other job-creating legislation Democrats have passed in the last year. We’d kind of like to know what Norton means, after planting her flag on a laundry list of things she things the government should have “no role” in, by “too small.” After all, wasn’t it made smaller…to win Republican votes?

Look we’re not naive, if the bill had been any “bigger,” it would have been too big and that would have been the story for Fox News. We’ve been around the block enough times to know Norton isn’t interested in endorsing any legislation Democrats put forward. We just wouldn’t have expected Norton to say any bill Democrats support is “too small,” the Tea Party might not get the subtleties.


36 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    Maybe she’s decided to return to the middle where I think she is most comfortable. And so she’s pinging the Dems (as she should – this is politics), but doing so in a way that does not put her out on the starve the government right.

    If so, then we Dems need to start worrying – that’s a position she can win from.

    • RedGreen says:

      This has nothing to do with a “return to the middle,” and everything to do with carping about a Democratic proposal for no reason other than that it’s a Democratic proposal.

      • DavidThi808 says:

        When you’re running you generally want to complain about the other side. “Bennet is doing great so vote Norton” doesn’t generally work.

        • Steve Harvey says:

          justifying a candidate’s propensity to say whatever will get her elected, regardless of how she actually feels about and how making the statement serves (or disserves) the public interest, I say that it’s up to us to redefine politics to mean supporting thoughtful and rational people with some degree of intellectual integrity.

        • Gray in Mountains says:

          The subtleties of the bill are things the average voter won’t py attention to. “It’s too small.” the vters will agree with.

          Bennet can agree that it is too small and simply say “It is the only thing that might have passed because of GOP opposition to anything more substantial. But, this bill will accomplish _______.”

        • Colorado Pols says:

          Here’s the problem that Norton is going to run into very soon, which we talked about in a post a few weeks ago: When you say whatever you want, whenever you want, eventually you start to contradict yourself.

          That’s exactly what is happening here. Norton has been talking about reigning in a bloated government, but then here she says that a government program should be bigger than what was proposed. You can’t say both things without one of them being false.

          The lack of message discipline out of the Norton campaign is truly bizarre. She’s talking herself in circles.

            • DavidThi808 says:

              If a politician is willing to answer most any question off the cuff and give specifics, then I’m willing to accept the occasional contradiction. You don’t get one without the other.

              And I much prefer a candidate who will give real answers to the questions they get.

              • DavidThi808 says:

                I do think she should grant me an interview!!!

                • Laughing Boy says:

                  I could ask her.  I’ll advise against it, but I’d be glad to at least ask her for you.

                  • DavidThi808 says:

                    Back in October Cinnamon was going to “make it happen real soon.” Since then it’s apparently become a lot less urgent…

                    As to an interview, you’ve read what I’ve written. Have I ever been unfair?

                    • RedGreen says:

                      keeping track of Jane’s “evolving” positions. Imagine the size of the spreadsheet to keep ’em all straight!

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      …up by double digits, watching a totally idiotic Dem primary, why would you talk to a lefty blogger, fair or not?

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      The younger a voter is, the more likely an undecided will make their decision by typing “Jane Norton” and then “Michael Bennet” in to Google and then reading the first 3 or 4 results that look credible to them.

                      Google places high based to a large degree on links to a page, time the page has been on the web, and quantity of key words in the article. Come October, my guess is it’s mostly going to be the various hit diaries that mostly come up for Jane.

                      The sooner she does interviews that are fair, the better those interviews will rank. So doing an interview today instead of in two months may not help much for the primary – but it can make a big difference in the general.

                      ps – Do a Google search on reporting software. 4 weeks ago it wasn’t in the first 10 pages. Now it’s #5 on the first page – because of what we have done at work. It’s all about the SEO baby.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      You’re as likely to get stories about the creator of A CHORUS LINE for Bennet and something called “Anusara Inspired Yoga with Jane Norton” for the Ref C gal. But don’t worry, they’ve got plenty of actual SEO-optimized pages out there, I doubt they’ll miss your interview.

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      But I’m pretty sure I know more about SEO than virtually any political operative in the state. It’s not what shows up today, it’s putting things in place so that they show up well in October.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      Exactly, David. My question is, why would either Bennet or Norton want one of your interviews to show up near the top?  

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      What tends to both rise to the top and to get read (and not get the back button in 2 seconds) is content that is considered independent, even handed, and has reasonable detail.

                      Generally on my interviews I’m told I did a fair job of describing the interviewee. So if a candidate thinks who they are will sell, then it’s a good thing. If they think that they need to pretend they are someone else – good luck in the age of the Internet.

                    • JeffcoBlue says:

                      The Tom Wienermobile or some shit? That’s priceless, as good as McInnis’ mustache. But it shows they’re at least a little worried about Sarah Jane.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      …and, of course, anybody with an internet connection, I know a handful of people who have contacted her offering to volunteer virtually full time and she got back to them with a similar answer to what she gave you.  Has yet to get back after almost three months.  A few of them have decided to put their energy into a different campaign.

              • RedGreen says:

                This isn’t a “real answer,” it’s just carping for any old reason that pops into her head. The reason this particular “off the cuff” answer is a problem, as Pols points out, is because it contradicts the basic framework of her campaign. And it’s most definitely not a sign she’s moving to the middle, despite her opponents’ best efforts to paint her there.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      given her tea-party rhetoric leading up to this moment, she doesn’t have much doubt to benefit from, and doesn’t deserve whatever political capital can be scraped off of portraying her as having had an improbable conversion.

      Nope. I’m going to go with the “base politics” interpretation, and argue that if she seems to shift to a more viable position, then it is only because she is Machiavellian enough to have recognized it to be more viable, and can’t be trusted to give a rat’s ass about the public interest.

  2. BoulderRepublican says:

    You’re absolutely insane if you would have voted for an $862 billion bill if you knew it would create only 1 million jobs.  Yes, that means a lot to the people who get those jobs.  But we could’ve sent checks for $43,100 to 10 million people for two years for the same price.

    Are you guys really so ignorant that you can’t comprehend this?

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.