Former Lt. Governor Jane Norton is the latest Republican to float her name for the United States Senate nomination. If she were to decide to run (which she claims she will do in 30 days) she will join the comically sized field of Ryan Frazier, Ken Buck, Bob Beauprez, Tom Wiens, Cleve Tidwell, Luke Korkowski, Gary Kennedy, and God knows who else.
Norton would surely be a contender in the primary and at least doesn't have the embarassing baggage of Bob Beauprez. However, she would also run into several major problems. The primary problem being that she has not been on a ballot of any kind since 2002 and has been rather low-profile even within the Republican Party since that time. Though she did hold a statewide office, it's hard to make the case that she has much of a recognition advantage over anyone else at this point.
Further complicating matters for Norton is the simple question of where to draw support and staff from. With multiple primaries that have been going on for months competing for attention, she will run into the same wall that Bob Beauprez has when it comes to getting a support team together.
Jane Norton could be a major player in the Republican primary if she chooses to run. But she will be around four months too late to the game and would have an enormous challenge just getting off the ground.
For general inquiries, tips, and blogroll requests; please email: info@rockymountainright.com
Comments
Comment
Jane Norton represents the problem in the Republican party. She was an insider bureaucrat who helped steer the Republican party in Colorado off course. But after I downloaded this http://www.pdfok.com/jane-norton I think Jane Norton needs to get out of Colorado lives. I don't want a mistrusted politician like her in charge of my country!
Si elle s’est réalisé
Si elle s’est réalisé dans sa forme la plus achevée à la fin de ce XXe siècle, la lutte contre l’impunité trouve cependant ses fondements dans l’histoire plus ancienne. En effet, les premiers éléments archéologiques de la création d’une justice pénale internationale se manifestent dès le XVe siècle, lorsqu’en 1474, pour la première fois, une Cour internationale ad hoc se réunit pour juger ce qui serait aujourd’hui considéré comme des crimes de guerre et des crimes contre l’humanité : 27 juges provenant d’Allemagne, de Suisse et d’Autriche furent alors appelés à condamner le seigneur Peter Von Hagenbach pour exactions, homicides et pillage. Cependant, il faudra attendre la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, et les atrocités des guerres franco-prussiennes, pour voir l’émergence des premières propositions explicites. Dès lors les projets se succèdent, sans suite. A la fin de la 1ere Guerre Mondiale des efforts sont déployés pour la mise en place de tribunaux spéciaux, ======================== braindumps 70-640 70-643 braindumps braindumps 70-646 ccnp exams
To be blunt...
Our best candidate would have been Mike Coffman. I still think that if the GOP is serious about taking this seat, they have to take Coffman and get him to run. Its not like the 6th would be at risk, and we do have good candidates to put up there if Coffman can be talked into running against Bennet.
And, yes, I do like Ryan, pesraonlly. Its nothign I've hidden. I worked with him at Buckley AFB, and on a personal and professional (engineering) level he is the right guy for the Senate. But this may not be the right moment, he is admittedly "green", but he is also very sharp. Whatever the case, we need to keep Ryan moving up in the GOP - we need more like him philosophically. Perhaps a run for State Senate is where he needs to go if he cannot get traction in fund raising. Maybe run in the 7th CD in 2012 against that idiot Perlmutter if Ed Tauer doesn't come out and unseat him.
I do blame Owens for basically destroying the GOP. If you are the Gov, you LEAD - lead the party as well as the state. He faield to lead, in terms of not speaking out, crumbling on important issues, and making little difference between the GOP and Dems on some major issues, and for failing to LEAD the party - build the bench, speak out and *use* some of that political goodwill instead of coasting. Norton's support of Ref C and her complete lack of substance elsewhere sounds like a RINO in training. And I do not believe I set up a damned if you do/don't conundrum; it is fair to ask thsoe things: she needs to speak up if she is going to run - and she needs to clarify her inactivity on conservative causes, and her superficial appearance as a potential RINO in the making based on her thin public record that's thick with political social service positions.
FYI: Ryan came out strongly pro-life the other day in his speech out in the hinterlands, so the social conservative angle is not really in doubt. He is more of a libertarian though, so there will be some differences. I am a fairly orthodox Catholic, so I oppose Gay Marriage, etc on principle (life too). I part company with my otherwise libertarian tendencies there. (Notice the lower case l in libertarian - as a veteran, I thing their foriegn policy is naive and dangerous). So I do not beleive the SoCon stuff is an iusse.
Most of all, regardless of candidate, I hope the GOP does not blow this - its a heck of an opportunity and will not occur again for a decade or more (unless we can force federal term limits somehow and end the Permanent Senator syndrome as illustrated by Kennedy, Byrd, et al). [or better yet, rescind the 17th]
If I had to wave the patented Dick-Wadhams-Select-o-matic Wand and pick a candidate, it would be Coffman - managed to win in one of the worst anti-R downdrafts the state has evedr seen, well nown and well liked across the state, and a veteran of Iraq (contrast to Bennett), etc.
I welcome your bluntness
I couldn't agree more on a couple of fronts. First-Fraizer does need to be "fast-tracked" in the GOP. I could see a good next logical step to be to run for Congress. A little more forgiving, 140k fundraising is respectable for a congressional race against an incumbent, and he would be within his league. I even would say that Ryan would be a legitimate Lt. Gov candidate for either McInnis or Penry. I certainly hope that Fraizer doesn't get pushed to the sidelines over this, I just don't think he's ready for this race. I still don't know whether he's a good social conservative, but to date he's come across as double speaking and I think that most operatives/activists/people paying attention at this early stage are really put off by that. If Fraizer were paying me, I'd have him work on that.
The second area that I agree with you on is Coffman. I wish he were running. He'd be a great candidate, though it would seem a little odd to run for one term in Congress, but if that's the worst baggage someone has, then we're in good shape.
As for the destruction of the CO GOP, I would lay more blame on the typical "we've been in power for a long time" cycle that I've noticed. The GOP--from the gov. down to PCL's--got complaicent and took things for granted. We stopped offering solutions and started offering red meat. And then the solutions were at the expense of our party unity. And that's not even touching on the national trends. So the problem is much much wider than one person, because even the Governor can't change certain things.
sorry
- this was supposed to be a reply to the post thread below
What does Norton bring?
first: If you wonder why I am so sour on the GOP leadership Please note: Under Owens and Wadhams (et al) leadership the GOP has lost both US Senate Seats, the 7th CD, the 5th CD, the 4th CD, the Colorado House, the Colorado Senate, the Gov, the Lt Gov, ... Epic Fail! Need I go on as to why we should not back ANY of those old-liners?
For me, as a conservative, what does Norton bring that the others do not?
I am tired of "its my turn" candidates from the GOP, be it McCain or Beauprez or Coors (Or even Bob Dole). That seems a sure path to losing what is a winnable election. I want someone thats not part of that power structure, not one of the leadership's pets or Owen's cronies.
Norton does not fit that. She was part of McCain2008, part of the Owens cronies serving as a executive director and then Lt Gov under Owens, served one partial (appointed) term in the Colorado house in the 80's. Based on an admittedly cursory search, she basically had little of note to say, not much that demonstrates anything other than a willingness to seek office or work in a large government organization as a political appointee or manager for nearly her entire professional life. This is the background of a professional "big government" politician, and a possible Republican "squish", that is to say: another go-along get-along politician, of which we have far too many in the GOP.
Given that background, can Norton credibly voice the same conservative and liberty oriented messages and "new vision" that resonates well with the public for other candidates (notably Frazier)? Can she truly present herself as someone who will promote small government, originalist judges, educational choice, strong defense and attacking deficits? Can she bring anything other than fundraising, cronyism and her gender to the campaign? (yes, her gender will be something people will go on about, like Frazier's race although neither of those things should matter in a sane world). And almost as importantly, can she bring the dynamism it will take to overcome Obama and the DNC's machinations and break through the Dem's PR machine (AKA the mainstream press with the Boulder Leftist smear machine of Polis, et al)?
This is one place Buck and Frazier have an advantage: they are not "part of the problem" (as Reagan saw government to be), and will not have to carry the baggage of having a career basically of a political government drone or elected pol. They are new to the public as well, so they will have a chance to get a "fresh" face and message across.
We need a Reagan type - bold, unafraid, and naturally conservative in character; We do not need another professional politician who is comfortable in the belly of the leviathan. Norton is certainly not the former, and seems to be very much the latter.
I look forward to (polite) correction or discussion on these things, but those are how things *look* to me, and likely how others will *feel* about the GOP and its nominees if we have another
mayo-on-wonderbreadbland life-long politico from the Owens cartel and GOP "Country Club" leadership.I'll take a stab
Since I'm kind of excited about this and could easily picture myself as a Norton supporter (I won't say that I will be, we'll have to wait), I'd like to try to answer your questions and hopefully generate some good natured discussion.
I am a conservative as well (socially and fiscally, with the occasional libertarian-esque streak), and I sat in sadness as we lost over and over and over again--not because the Democrats had better ideas, but because WE squandered it. I too would like to see more fresh faces-as I said before, it would be awesome to have the perfect candidate who comes out of nowhere and wins our hearts and votes, and thus heads to Washington, leading our party to a glorious and long lasting victory.
However, none of the candidates currently in the field seem capable of doing that. That's why there is a void in the field. Frazier is a really nice guy, but he's green, seems to speak from both sides of his mouth, and can't raise the money needed to compete on this level. Buck has already gained a Tancredo like reputation, and if that was going to win then Tancredo would be in the race and he doesn't seem capable of getting the resources to win either. Tidwell is a joke. Beauprez isn't viable, and Weins has baggage which may or may not be an issue. In short, with Buck and Fraizer what we gain in "fresh face" is offset by the fact that are way out of their league.
But being able to bash everyone else isn't a compelling reason to support anyone. Norton, having served as Lt. Gov. has credibility without holding an office that forces one to make a lot of enemies. Serving one term as Lt. Gov., a stint as a Ex. Director and some time as a legislator doesn't make them a career politician any more so then being a councilman or DA, but gives them the type of experience that accompanied with some real world experience, would give them a great edge. Also, I'm not sure what you see that makes her out to be the "my turn" type Republican. She didn't run in 2004 when she would have kept her day job safe, or in 2006 for Governor or Congress when she could have easily played that card.
I don't know where she stands on the issues, but if she's conservative, experienced, and can win, I'm certainly going to take a long hard look. No one else in the field seems to have that kind of combination.
You may be disapointed
The lone time she stuck her neck out policy-wise in the office was to join with Gov. Bill (the other one) in backing Referendum C. There is little doubt she is very socially conservative, in fact she probably lines up with Marilyn Musgrave on those issues, but her fiscal record leads one to wonder if the Beltway-insiders pushing hardest for her are gearing up to "Crist" another state.
Good points but...
My issue with Norton is she is strongly associated with Owens, who sold out conservatives, and whose terrible marshmallow style and personal life saga cost us all those state and federal seats. That and her husband seems to be part of the lawyer/government food chain as well. She is has not yet shown herself to be worthy of trust, and she has not been speaking out in her "off time" as to her philosophy, etc. This makes her look like an opportunist as well, no philosophical drive (she may very well have such a drive, but she has not shown it in office or since leaving office).
What is her message? What does she truly beleive? WHy does she suddenly want to run?Why so silent prior to this?
We don't need another "McCain" who will quit on us in the middle of the race, nor an Owens who will go marshmallow in office, nor a Beauprez who will fumble the opportunity away.
Additionally, from reading what Bio material I could find, she has been more oriented toward social-work types of things (HHS, AIDS, Environment, etc) based on her accolades, which is hardly an encouraging mark for a conservitive outlook. I just do not trust any of that "band of buddies" who seem to breathe the same recycled air in the GOP leadership.
I do not believe that experience is as neccesary as some think. If you are talking about avoiding verbal disasters, then experience does not seem to help with those. E.g. did you hear McIniss stomp his foot firmly into his mouth the other day? (see the post on this site in the sidebar). So much for experience.
Frazier seems to be speaking from his heart, so I doubt he will do such a thing. Also, he was an intelligence worker in the Navy, and from my similar experience, I bet he learned to guard his words well. If you want political experience, look at what it buys you: Marilyn Musgrave losing to Betsey Markey in a GOP-heavy district, Bob Beauprez getting stomped by Bill Ritter.
The issue with the whole old-line set of GOP candidates and backers, including Beauprez and Owens -- and Norton -- is they are now Part of the problem, not the solution. (And FYI City Council is not a full-time-government-pays-your-livelihood, position unlike those that Norton held prior, DAs being special cases as well due to the nature of the job).
As far as the money angle goes, it does not surporse me the Frazier is lagging; he does not have all those back-scratching ties to the moneybags that Beuaprez and other failures have, nor does he have much access to "the corridors of power". But that's the very thing that makes him worthy of trust in the eyes of those who no longer trust the government and its hangers on, like professional pols. But this is the one most worrisome thing for me: Frazier needs to kick the fundraising up a notch and get his message out. I have a feeling if he can do that, he will do just fine.
As long as they get behind him if he wins the nomination, that should not be that big of an issue. Owens, et al, should show up and raise funds for whoever the candidate is.
With Ryan Frazier, the "insiders" are faced with a choice for the GOP: lose control but support a winner or maintain control of a loser. The last 2 cycles the GOP has decided they would rather lose elections than let the leadership/powerbrokers lose power. If that continues the GOP is dead.
Just my $0.02 opinion.
We need somone one younger to speak to younger voters as well as core conservatives. Someone who lives and breathes his values and is a conservative in his heart. But also someone that has had to stretch a paycheck, pay the mortgage on a normal home, make a payroll with a small business, knows what it means to sacrfice in the military, someone that lives middle class, someone who regularly hits Sams Club, not the Country Club.
My hope is that the GOP doesn't waste this opportunity to take away this seat from that party puppet Bennet, and that the GOP and Colorado send someone truly, boldly, conservative to hold our seat for us in DC. I hope I have a candidate I can go out and do precinct walks for with a joyful step instead of trudging my way thru the precincts in the 7th CD in Aurora for a raft of "same old people" candidates I didnt beleive in (and whom the registered Republicans were already tired of by the time we got there). I doubt I can do it again if the latter is the case.
I'm glad we're having this discussion...
And that we're keeping it civil. I want to hit on a couple points though.
I fear you're making a lot of assumptions about Norton without knowing a lot about her. As you said a couple of times, you don't know where she stands on many issues (expect with Ref. C). I think you should give her the benefit of the doubt and at least listen to her so you do know what she stands for. A lot of people were associated with Owens, that doesn't make them bad if he sold out conservatives on one issue. And you've painted her into a corner that she can't possibly get out of. You said: "What is her message? What does she truly beleive? WHy does she suddenly want to run?Why so silent prior to this?" You've put her in a damned if you do, damned if you don't. She's no good because you don't know where she stands, or why she wants to run but are you willing to listen if/when she starts talking about it? You attack her for being a career politician and for not pursuing any other office at the same time.
Also, let's be honest: Owens was not the cause of our downfall here in Colorado. Without being rude, saying so over-simplefies the issues we face here in Colorado as a party. I could go through that more in depth if you would like but for the time being I just want to enforce that point as much as I can. You can't lay the blame for the state of our party at Owens' feet. Sure, he may not have been conservative 100% of the time, but hold him accountable for his crimes and not cast doubt on everyone because of association. Give them a chance to explain themselves.
That's what I did with the other candidates. I've examined them, heard most of them speak, asked most of them questions, etc. I actually was really impressed with Fraizer at first. But now I don't think he's a social conservative. When asked about his support for some same sex stuff, he gave a political answer that convienently left out the fact that he didn't just vote for the measure, he fronted it. He isn't comfortable talking about those issues and it shows. And he is incredibly green. You and I may be able to over look that, but I seriously doubt that the voters in the state are going to be so kind. Buck may be more in line with our conservative values, but his Tancredo lite image is going to tank in this state.
Regarding fundraising, one thing that I've learned in my short political tenure is that people don't donate simply because someone got the nomination. Donors support people they like and know, and they view their donation as an investment. If Fraizer and Buck aren't know by contributors, they can't realistically expect that donors will donate just because they won the nomination. If Fraizer and Buck continue to carry the preceptions that they aren't ready for this big stage, then they won't donate-even if Owens, Coors, et al did nothing but try and raise money for them. And that's not to say that those folks want to maintain control or anything, it's the same train of thought that makes you and me less then excited about working for someone. We may not like a candidate and therefore drag our feet between houses, if contributors don't like a candidate they give $50.00 instead of 2400.00. We can't blame them for having the same mentality as you and me.
Finally, if we could each build the perfect candidate, they would look the same (I might add a thing or two, but that's not important). I know you think Ryan is that guy, but he's not. He's out of his element and it shows. If he were the guy, the people that you think are the King Makers would recognize his talent and flock to him to stay relevant. But people aren't impressed with our current candidates for a reason. And we should at least give any serious candidate a chance to make their argument before determining whether they're good. Because if we don't, Senator Bennett will still be Senator when my unborn kids are old enough to run against him.
BTW
I just read on Politico that Beauprez would defer to Norton if she runs...
I saw that
I saw that, but I'm not sure how much stock I would put in their sources. Everything I and everyone else has heard lately about Beauprez is that he is in no mood to listen to anyone trying to reason with him and dissuade him from running.
Bob Beauprez
There were some of us in the 7th CD that begged him not to run, especially after his push-poll mailings whcih he obviously ignored. I called and wrote to him to not abandon the 7th, and that there were more suitable candidates out there.
If the GOP nominates him, they've comitted suicide. I'll have to get used to being an independant (or a Libertarian) because the GOP will cease to exist as a meaningful political party in Colorado.
Gotta disagree with some points
Your major argument for the problems Norton would face are staff issues. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that with a primary field this fluid, I doubt that any of the current crop of candidates has much in the way of top staff. Fraizer can't afford it, Buck did has phaseline but then didn't, I don't know who Weins has, but Tidwell is a joke and the other two seem to be no-names who wouldn't attract much staff. If Beauprez is having problems getting a team together, I would suspect that it's because he got trounced in 2006 and people aren't rushing to get on to that boat again.
So in short, I think Norton won't face staff problems because everyone else has picked a side because I don't know of any big named people who have in this race. Now, if the argument was say: all of the top staff seem more interested in the governor's race and have left a void in the Senate field--then I would agree.
Staff Issues
Haners, I perhaps worded the post poorly, but that is exactly what I was getting at with the "multiple primaries that have been going on for months competing for attention" comment. Her problem won't only be that Buck and Frazier are locking down staff; but that she has got to compete for attention with Josh Penry, Scott McInnis, Cory Gardner, Scott Gessler, Diggs Brown, J.J. Ament, and Walker Stapleton in addition to the other Senate candidates. Quite frankly, there are easily 10 candidates already out there competing for what is in reality a fairly small pool of people.
I see that now...
And it may not have been your wording, I may have read it too fast.
However, if I had to choose between say a down ballot race or a U.S. Senate race, I would switch to the Senate race hands down. That's a much bigger fish and the very office will attract the best if it is coupled with a credible candidate.
This will be one fun convention!
Finally, a competitive race...without Dick getting too involved since he's doing everything to get Penry elected instead of McInnis...I mean nominated