U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
February 17, 2010 08:58 PM UTC

Norton Welcomes Obama With Ad Blitz

  • 85 Comments
  • by: RedGreen

(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?

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

85 thoughts on “Norton Welcomes Obama With Ad Blitz”

  1. 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.

    1. that the only way to cut 20 percent in spending is to go after defense, Social Security or Medicare, or a combination of all three.

      There’s no other segment of the budget with the kind of money required to cut 20 percent.

      So…the GOP will be weak on defense and surrender the war on terror? Or cut money to old people? And old people’s health cre?

      Hardly.

      1. aren’t discretionary spending. Neither is interest on the national debt. To be clear, Norton says cut 20% of discretionary spending.

        But you’re right, close all the national parks, shutter NASA, stop funding highways, bring home all the ambassadors — you can’t cut 20% without touching defense.

          1. Dems ALWAYS miss the point.  This ad is very effective.  Bennet/Romanoff/Waak should be on the air immediately with a counter ad….

            Will that happen? NO.  Dems will post to each other about how dumb Norton is and how smart Dems are…

            This is called the MASS strategy…

          2. R 36 has never missed the point that I’ve seen

            It’s true that that if they say it, over and over – it will be believed.

            2009  95% of AMerican taxpayers got a tax cut – taxes went down

            Feb 2010 perception: more than 50% of AMerican tax payers think their taxes went up

            Perception-  Military action in Afghanistan is pointless

            Reality- we just captured theTaliban military commmander, and are one summer away form stabiliizg the key Afghani ag area  

  2. (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. 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.

      1. 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.  

        1. 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?

          1. So we should spend money on federal programs that do little to create jobs and are more or less a leech on the taxpayer? The key word here is responsibility. Spend money on good programs, trash the ineffective ones. It’s a pretty simple proposal.

            The fact that you say the Obama deficits “seem” large is ridiculous. They are HUGE. The fact that the Bush administration didn’t accurately account for our deficits does not change the fact that the deficit is still incredibly large, and it continues to grow.

            As to your last point, the country’s long term financial stability is at risk. Many economists have warned of a double-dip recession looming already. The last thing we need is more debt on top of that.

            2. You wrote: “Spend money on good programs, trash the ineffective ones. It’s a pretty simple proposal.”

              Yes, it’s “simple” — in the sense of being uninformed and empty. Congrats on having a candidate who’s in favor of “good” spending but against “ineffective” spending.  What a leader.

              2. I oversimplified the issue,it will be a difficult task that will require whomever gets elected to make tough choices. My point is that Bennet can’t say no to Obama and the spending spree that is going on in Washington. I would rather vote for someone whose primary campaign promise is to balance the budget, than a candidate that will just inflate the deficit even more.

  4. 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.

          1. she’ll run against Obama, Pelosi, etc., and THEN, IF she still trails, she’ll hit her actual opponent.

            Another poll, by Research 2000, taken two weeks before the Ras poll, had Bennet up by 1 point (by your methods, that’d be almost a 2 point advantage!).

            Until there are some real, non-robocall, nonpartisan polls, and until the candidates start reaching beyond their base for caucuses, we’re not going to have any idea who’s got the advantage.

            1. Running against Bennet might as well be a race against Obama, Pelosi and the rest. Bennet is a pawn.

              If the polls are so skewed, then why would BiCora bother alluding to them uin the first place?

              1. Presumably we’ll have a better handle on things this summer when the campaigns are well under way. BiCora “alluded” to what will be going on then. If we’re still looking at a February Rasmussen poll in August, your point will make sense.

            2. Scooby and the other R’s are right- Norton has this thing wired.  Nothing to see- their work is done.

              I’ll be here in Nov to congratulate them.  

              So- they don’t have to do anything between now and then.

            1. 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.

              1. 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?

                1. 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?

                  1. 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.

                    2. 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.  

                    3. 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.  

                    4. 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!

                    5. 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.  

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

                  3. 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.

          2. 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.

            1. 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.  

              1. 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.

                1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

        3. I don’t know how much air time she purchased, nor do I know how all that TV stuff works.

          Still stand by my statement that it is a good professionally created and messaged ad though.  Complete bullshit, yes, but still a good ad  : )

    1. Man, that’s so bad and yet kind of really funny. And yet knowing the current political environment, someone is bound to spin it just that way.

        1. Before OneEyedOwl points it out, I will acknowledge that phrase could be read as expressing anti-German sentiments. Let me state that I am vehemently opposed to the Kaiser’s policies, but I treasure the German people.

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

68 readers online now

Newsletter

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