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
January 07, 2010 11:22 PM UTC

Norton's "Terrorist Rights" Line Looks Really Bad on National TV

  • 84 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asks, “what does that even mean?”

This is starting to get interesting, folks. We’ve been clear as to why we think Jane Norton is making an effort to appeal to the “Tea Party” contingent of newly-energized Republicans. But there’s a difference between a few red-meat affectations to make the hardcore base happy and what Norton is doing: from ‘abolishing’ the Department of Education, to placidly standing by while “Tea Partiers” assert all kinds of abominable things in her presence–and now this latest “terrorist rights” gem–Norton is either dreadfully overcompensating for the conservative angst her campaign initially met with…or she’s the next Michele Bachmann.

Either way, Norton can only be trotted out on national TV as a joke so many times before the question of the voters she wins over with this extreme rhetoric–as opposed to the much larger percentage she loses–becomes quite urgent for her.

Tweet
Share

Comments

84 thoughts on “Norton’s “Terrorist Rights” Line Looks Really Bad on National TV”

  1. Which is weird because that is her natural constituency. She’s a moderate and she can’t run to the right of Buck & Wiens.

    Anyways, Lt Gov Norton, my offer remains – I am happy to interview you anytime. And that would give you a chance to address the above as well as anything else you would like to discuss.

    1. From that clip, it’s clear Norton was saying what Karl Rove and all Republicans are saying. The Christmas bomber should be treated as an enemy combatant, not as a criminal who has the rights of American citizens.

      Obama clearly is more concerned about the rights of the killer kid than about the rights of 300 million Americans who are depending on him to defend them.

      Chris Matthews looked awfully weak on this one, and his panel’s comments are unintelligible. It is clear that the Democrat who was filming Norton was so close to her that she knew she was being filmed and wanted Colorado voters to know she’s not Michael Bennet.

      I like Norton’s style.

      1. She’s trying to appeal to you with her insane comparisons. We just came from an administration where there was actually an attempt from the President and Vice President to curb certain civil liberties in the interest of national security. Jack Bauer was proud.

        The Republicans trying to make a political issue out of Obama’s decision is laughable given the fact that we already tried Zacarias Moussaoui in Federal court–under Bush no less! I don’t recall, when that happened, the Bush administration being accused of putting the rights of terrorists above those of the American people. No, back then, people were more interested in justice for the victims of 9/11 than scoring political points.

        Now, scoring political points has become patriotic! Supporting the president means you’re a communist nazi! Up is down, black is white! Such is the bizarro political discourse that the Republicans have come up with in the past year.

        I for one just hope she continues to be a one-woman Tea Party appeasement campaign. It’s going to do wonders for the Democrat in the fall. You’d think you guys would want to take advantage of how this election is shaping up to favor Republicans, but you just can’t help yourselves.

      2. Do you agree with fear-mongering as a campaigning strategy, or are you just so afraid of terrorists that you buy into this bullshit?  How is trying this fuckwad in an American court — where he is going to get a goddamned life sentence and never sees daylight again — denigrating the rights of 300 million Americans?  Can you try to make sense?  You’d rather we say: “You are not an American citizen and further, we are scared shitless of your kind of people, therefore we will torture you and summarily execute you and throw you into a ditch because that’s what happened to us when we invaded Somalia.”  

        So far I’ve seen calm, rational analysis from the lefties here on this and I’ve seen nothing but emotional, knee-jerk hyperbole about “rights” from the right.  Grow up and stop being so goddamned afraid of everything.

      3. Obama is protecting all of our rights and making us safer.

        1) Governments don’t start by abrogating the rights of model citizens, they start by abrogating the most heinous cases. Protecting all of our rights requires we protect everyone’s rights.

        2) We are in a war of ideas more than anything else. When we handle someone like this in the justice system we hold America up as a wonderful example that the terrorists cannot match. Many in Eastern Europe said the example of America was their strongest weapon in overturning communism.

        When you grow up hopefully you will learn that instant gratification is many times not the optimal response.

        1. This guy has been singing like a canary since he was arrested.

          He will probably be offered a plea bargain in return for his cooperation.  And, since having his balls burned off is pretty convincing evidence of guilt, he (and his lawyer) will probably accept such a plea bargain.

          Any evidence offered up in the course of the plea bargain will be usable because it won’t be tainted by torture.

          Of course, keeping the country safe isn’t really what’s foremost in the minds of Jack Bauer wannabees like Another Skeptic.

  3. All she was trying to say was that the Obama admin is creating a potential hypothetical situation in which KSM is acquitted and the American people are put into severe danger…hypothetically.

    This site is so biased it’s ridiculous.

    (Does that about sum it up? I’m trying to do the GOP’s work for it.)

    1. Jane’s answer was no and if you close down gitmo (hypothetically) and allow all enemy combatants to be tried in American Courts, you are endangering the lives of Americans.

      Her next part was an assertion that if the administration made these two practices policy, the administration would be putting the rights of terrorist over American lives.

      This shows how worried the Dems are of Jane. To start throwing mud this early, and taking her comments out of context indicates the NSCC considers Jane a threat.

        1. Why do you hate America line? I’m a proud American. You should take a constitutional law class sometime. The founders believed that every American citizen had the right to be tried in our Judaical system. This does not extend to Enemy combatants of foreign states states. Our founders were pretty clear about trying British soldiers differently in the war of 1812 than American citizens.

          Before you claim to know what the founders intentions were, please brush up on your history.

                1. …and my key points are this:

                  1) Even if the President claims the right to try “unlawful combatants” by military tribunal, they are still accorded  the right to review of their status and detention in FEDERAL court. Note that this was a Supreme Court decision, not some  JAG official at a military prison.

                  2) The Quirin decision legitimized Military Tribunal in times of war. There’s been no declaration of war by congress, just a shaky joint resolution.

                  Just using my brain…

          2. Amendment 6:

            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

            The Supreme Court decisions which seem to argue otherwise are, IMO, incorrect.  Nowhere in this amendment does it refer to “citizens” or “combat”.  It does refer to “State and district” – so there is a grey area for actual war outside the borders of the US.  But the Underwear Bomber is alleged to have committed his crime over US soil.

              2. And where does it say that?  The Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) restricts the government from performing certain acts.  The plain text of it clearly spells this out – read it.

                And, the Supreme Court even agrees with me.  Reid v. Covert. U.S. v. Tiede

                It boggles my mind that people who are supposedly for “liberty” are so eager to allow the government to take people’s rights away just because the government says it can.  Global warming is quite possibly being increased by Madison, Jefferson, etc. spinning in their graves.

          3. is an elitist who hates our system of justice and doesn’t believe that a reasonable verdict can be reached in them all the while proclaiming how proud he is of America.  You can’t be a much bigger hypocrite than saying that you love America but you don’t believe in it’s institutions or principles of justice.

            This dude needs to pack it up and head to Somalia where blowing peoples brains at the hands of vigilantes is his brand of justice.

            Spare us your holy-than-thou crap Hollywood.  Just admit that you are a totalitarian fan and you don’t believe in American justice or the rights of the accused.

            1. I never said that the American Judicial system was not capable of handing out a reasonable verdict. My argument suggested that enemy combatants should not be afforded the right….

              Military tribunals are much more humane than the treatment our men and women receive from terrorists.

      4. Jane Norton’s statements are helping her with the Tea Party Party, no doubt, but with every quote like this, it just keeps pushing her further and further outside of the mainstream.

        2. Her comment wasn’t that far off the mainstream.

          It’s not far off the mainstream to say let’s protect American lives by making sure enemy combatants are locked up.

          1. But she didn’t. She created the soundbite, just like when she neglected to tell the nice woman that Obama wasn’t actually a muslim when talking to Tea Partiers in Ft. Morgan.

            Saying that Obama is putting the rights of terrorists over the rights of American citizens is a bald-faced lie no matter how you explain it away. If it wasn’t what she really, actually said, and no amount of “when you cut it down and analyze it, and you just replace a bunch of words with another bunch of words” can change that.

            1. In Fort Morgan she clearly said to the lady that we need to use her misguided energy in “a positive way”. That’s another example of the Democrats making a big deal of nothing and perverting actuality.

              Her not correcting a person in public and saying they instead should use their energy in positive way, is in no way radical.  

              1. So what was John McCain doing in 2008? Going above and beyond or something? I don’t think so. When faced with similarly misinformed people, John McCain took a step back from the theatro politico and corrected her. He continued to do so–much to his frustration I might add–without reservation for the duration of the campaign.

                Jane Norton may have Senator McCain’s support in this race, but I don’t think she’s learned from her friend and ally.

        1. The point is that Obama has missed an opportunity to learn about our enemies because he’s allowed the Christmas bomber to be lawyered up.

          Mainstream America hates lawyers.

      6. Don’t you think that the Bush ‘Mastermind” of 9/11 should be tried and executed in NY?

        Or do you believe tht 9/11 victims should shut up already like Glen Beck?

    2. It seems they can’t find a QB willing to put on his helmut and synch up his jock.

      If Hick jumps in then 10 want to be mayors will start campaigning for the March 11 race and Hick is facing a big question.

      Plus, it takes a week at least to do the Op reseach on yourself.  

      I think Ritter really screwed the pooch with his quick exit and blame it on family issues.  

      Where there is smoke there is fire!!!!!!

          3. Jane Norton is just as batshit crazy as you.

            And now that we have established that beyond a reasonable doubt, by your own admission, tell me why she should be allowed within a mile of the Capitol (K Street included).

  4. Oversimplifying everything to make a  point

    …Norton is either dreadfully overcompensating for the conservative angst her campaign initially met with…or she’s the next Michele Bachmann.

    Why couldn’t she be both?

  5. Whatever Bennet is, he’s clearly not Norton! How incredibly motivational! It’ll make you willing to put up with almost anything from the little guy! There you guys go. Now am I a good progressive?

    2. that compares and contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of the distinct electoral strategies

      1) finding a candidate who is more than 50% likely to win who is also ideologically aligned with some standard or personal preference.

      or

      2) finding a candidate who is ideologically aligned with some standard or personal preference but is less likely to win.

      or

      3) finding a candidate who is more than 50% likely to win but who is not, or is perceived to not be, ideologically aligned with some standard or personal preference.

      Note- we are  not facingthat choice in the 2010 D Senate primary.  

      By all available evidence, Senator Bennet and A. Romanoff are not significantly difference on policy positions. Both would likely be described as moderate or even centrist D”s.

      But I agree with your other comments that getting the more progressive and further/faster left voters involved and motivated and eventually to the ballot box with ballot in hand is important.  

      I don’t agree  Senator Bennet is the lesser of two evils when compared with Norton (or Wiens or Buck).  I think he’s a very good senator who has voted as I would have wanted him to almost all the time. I think the R candidates would have voted as I would have wanted almost none of the time. So it’s a choice between a worse candidate and a better candidate.

      2. From the Denver Post

        stagarite 2 years ago

        “Why not provide citizens of the United States with the same free medical coverage that is provided by our government to foreign national illegal aliens that broke our laws to get here?”

        Health care is a human right. The only real question is how to deliver it in a fair and cost-effective manner. Redneck envy and resentment isn’t solution-oriented, and most Coloradans are tired of these antics.

        Fair and cost effective way to deliver health care to all Americans seems like a reasonable objective.  Who do you think is more likely to legislate in a way that accomplishes that?

        Stay home if you must, but the all or nothing approach to candidate selection seems….unproductive.

  6. who is exponentially more of a demagogue than Jane Norton.  I do confess to liking Rachel Maddow precisely because she does let her guests make their points uninterrupted.  She often then knocks them down, but that’s fair game.  But may her ratings increase, proving  at last that “Nice Gals Finish First.”

    2. at letting their guests explain in detail their views.  Maybe the guests weren’t totally balanced but they were given long segments to discuss their perspective.  The drawback of this format of journalism is that it lets the guest dump a lot of false information that doesn’t get challenged.  Where is the line between allowing a guest to make their statements and at the same time being able to fact check and challenge their presentation when it wanders into Dick Cheney territory.

      I heard one suggestion that the Sunday Talking Head shows hire researchers who can on in real time fact check guest statements and communicate with the moderator on follow up questions.  I kind of like that but then it would require moderators who would want to ask follow up questions.

  7. What gets me is that even when she is spouting insane over-the-top rhetoric she still manages to do so while still sounding like she is about to fall asleep.

      1. I’m really curious to see how you’re going to explain it. There are plenty of boring male politicians too. In fact, if it comes down to Bennet and Norton, the debate will be the snoozefest of the century.

      2. Substitute “he” for “she” and that sentence could have been written about Bennet.

        Personally, however, I think I agree with you.  Jane’s speaking style is actually pretty effective.  She talks with, not to, the people in the room.

        1. That’s why Bennet will have to petition on to the ballot.  He’s a rich, 7th Ave. mansion living elite east coaster who won’t give the average Joe the time of day.

          He has the political acumen of his appointer.

          2. It makes any dry rub that much better.

              1.   Preheat grill for high heat.

              2. In a small jar, combine cumin, chili powder, paprika, salt, and pepper. Close the lid, and shake to mix.

              3. Trim the membrane sheath from the back of each rack. Run a small, sharp knife between the membrane and each rib, and snip off the membrane as much as possible. Sprinkle as much of the rub onto both sides of the ribs as desired. To prevent the ribs from becoming too dark and spicy, do not thoroughly rub the spices into the ribs. Store the unused portion of the spice mix for future use.

              4. Place aluminum foil on lower rack to capture drippings and prevent flare-ups. Lightly oil grate, and lay ribs on top rack of grill. Reduce heat to low, close lid, and leave undisturbed for 1 hour. Do not lift lid at all.

              5. Brush ribs with barbecue sauce, and grill an additional 5 minutes. Serve ribs as whole rack, or cut between each rib bone and pile individually on a platter.

            I formatted the recipe so you’d be able to understand it.

                1. Here’s a couple of jokes he could have said that would have actually been funny:

                  1. You can’t usually get cumin from a dry rub.

                  2. I’m surprised you can type with all that cumin on your keyboard.

                  I can go on, but really, what’s the point? Simple humor is all Libertad can relate to.

      3. Good News:  Daily Kos’ polling firm Research 2000 will be polling Colorado next week.  They are a very reliable polling firm regardless of the liberal perspective of DailyKos.

        This will plug the void filled by the inaccurate and GOP-leaning Rasmussen polls which are cited by the likes of you.  

        Get ready for a polling surprise.

          1. I couldn’t find anything in a cursory look at Kos or Research 2000 but assume their methodology does a few things Rasmussen generally does not.

            A) Polls “likely” voters- whoever identified

            B) Adjsuts respondents for actual relevant demographics

            Ie, poll 1/3,D 1/3R and 1/3R

            Or Poll approx 60% in the metro area and 70% in the front range

            Etc

            We’ll see that the mythical Bennet “high unfavorables” are mostly disappointed D’s – R’s will have low name recognition

            Norton will appear to have good to very goo name rec- but not really cause she’s getting the boost form the other Nortons

            And when issues are described without partisan affiliation or personal attribution, CO will lean left. We’re a center left indigo.  

            Everyone is angry at Congress for something.  Doesn’t matter in CD1,2,3,5 or 6 where the incumbent is safe. It’s bad for Markey and Bennet

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

150 readers online now

Newsletter

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