Smarter Jane Norton: Now “Tracker” Aware

As the Lamar Ledger reported Thursday, Senate candidate Jane Norton is at least aware now that Democratic “trackers”–or others willing to report on/record what’s actually said–are in the room:

Norton, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, was campaigning at The Perk in Lamar on May 4, telling the assembled crowd that the state of the nation is in their hands.

“I truly believe our Republic is in jeopardy,” Norton said.

Prowers County Assessor Andy Wyatt asked about the possibility of having another Constitutional Convention.

“We the People have had our collective bellies full,” he said.

Norton said the easier, faster way to reform the government is to elect people who represent the values of the constituents. A Constitutional Convention would take too much time, she said.

Wyatt mentioned a book he had read about U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“She`s a filthy, nasty, dirty Chicago politician,” Wyatt said.

Norton cautioned Wyatt about a representative from the Democratic Party who was present… [Pols emphasis]

Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco, not Chicago, of course, but Norton was focused on the part that matters most to her lately: the Democrat in the room. Since “trackers” have provided some of Norton’s most damaging on-camera moments so far this campaign, from that infamous crack about Obama,  ’terrorist rights’ and health care to being ‘first to call’ for abolishing the Department of Education, you can understand why she’s making an effort to keep her “Tea Party” audiences from putting her into embarrassing situations. Sometimes she can control it by simply not allowing cameras (see above), but obviously that’s not going to work everywhere she whistle-stops. And people can still write it down…

Of course, it also used to be policy that Norton didn’t ever mention her Republican primary opponent Ken Buck either–we see reality has changed up that game plan, too.

Norton told the assembled crowd that she had quit her job to run for Senate, while her opponent, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, is still employed by the county.

Those running for office and other elected officials shouldn`t use taxpayer money or time to campaign, she said.

Here’s hoping she made an exception for Rep. Cory “Absentee” Gardner, who would like to represent Lamar in Congress someday–and come to think of it, isn’t Norton’s campaign manager, you know, an elected official too? An official who was, in fact, running for office last year having not resigned his present job either? If Norton’s dig on Buck seems problematic for a lot of folks not named Jane Norton, well, obviously, you’re just a liberal trying to bring her down.

Ribbing aside, we have to say that at least being aware how what’s said at Norton’s events reflects on her personally does indicate some belated smartening up by her campaign: one hopes it’s not already too late, though, with a bounty of ready-made TV spot sound bites in the wild. And in engaging her opponent by name–just as we said about Scott McInnis’ recent stepped-up attacks on Dan Maes–a much-needed recognition that Norton is not so inevitable after all.

40 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. fragiledem60 says:

    So I’m guessing no more jewels of wisdom and achievement being caught on tape anymore? Darn those shoe fetish like cancer screenings.

  2. Froward69 says:

    reporting her four different Opinions on any single subject.

    After all should the voters hear how crazed and pandering she is. They might not vote for her.  

  3. OneEyedOwl says:

    for public office who fears that what he or she says during campaign events will be disseminated to the voters.  

  4. Middle of the Road says:

    Her “tells” just keep adding up–letting go of staff, bringing on Penry to shore up her conservative credentials, finally acknowledging Buck and starting to take swipes at him, her bailing out of the state assembly and petitioning to ensure she even makes the ballot (a smart move considering what happened to the good Senator from Utah this weekend).

    And if she or anyone else on the Republican side think that her Democratic opponents haven’t been doing opposition research on her for months, then I have no answer for that level of naivety.  

    • colawman says:

      If Norton is confident people will buy her tales about Buck being the Washington insider then, she also believes those same people will believe she is not a lap dog for McCain. A willingness to lie is not a foundation I would want to build a canidacy on.    

    • marilou says:

      Has Norton figured out yet that Josh Penry is a liberal and will nor “shore up her conservative credentials”?  

      Every time the gas industry tells Penry to “jump,” he asks, “how high.”  They own him and they own his votes.

      Will John McCain likewise own Jane McCain’s votes?  

  5. GOPwarrior says:

    REAL Republicans have in the family issues with Norton, but we will take her over Bennetoff! And either Norton or Buck is our next U.S. Senator!

    • Middle of the Road says:

      “Norton should answer whether she supports this as she supported Ref C. What’s the difference? Ken Buck should be all over this” GOPWarrior

      Way to keep it in the house, dude.

    • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

      isn’t that condoning cloning which is right up there with death panels as a no-no.

      I also like lying as a family issue.  He lies.  She lies.  They both lie.  This is one seriously dysfunctional family in need of some intense therapy to help them come to grips with their narcissism and delusional fantasies of deporting 12 million people by force.

      Bennet and Romanoff are running exemplary campaigns and show how opponents can still agree on the need to actually solve problems.  I’ll vote for either over the Hatfields and McCoys in a heartbeat.

  6. redeye says:

    She posted a NY Times article on her FB page and attributed a quote that does not appear in the article anywhere at all.

    Can Jane be misleading people yet again?

  7. NeonNurseNeonNurse says:

    I had seen Jane was coming to town. I meant to go and I totally spaced it.

    The article didn’t give a crowd size, and I would have been interested to know. The Perk isn’t a very big place. TheClone and I were wondering who suggested it to the Norton campaign. Did they they think a small crowd would look bigger in a small place, or were they just hoping some Rs would take the chance to sip a latte when no liberals were looking?

    Don’t get me wrong, the Perk is a nice little place and I’m glad they could get some extra customers.

    But when Ritter, Bennet, and Markey have come down here recently, THEY go speak in one of the lecture halls at LCC so they can be sure of accommodating a crowd.  And Romanoff chose to meet in the big private banquet room of the Ports to Plains Truck Stop the last two times he was here.

    Is someone secretly sabotaging Norton’s campaign, trying to shrink it down so they can drown it in a coffee cup?

    • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

      I enjoyed a spontaneous smile reading it.  It was the proper mixture of using conspiracy paranoia and outright sarcasm.  Thanks.

    • colawman says:

      I have been noticing Norton’s photos are always of her speaking to the “crowd”. Rarely do you see a picture of her with the audience as a back drop.

    • BlueCat says:

      While saying things like:

      Norton said the easier, faster way to reform the government is to elect people who represent the values of the constituents….

      …they ignore the inconvenient fact that the government we have now with a Dem in the White House and a Dem majority in both houses of congress does reflect and is the only legitimate reflection of the will of the people as expressed in the last election.  They are the ones majorities of voters selected to  be their voice and reflect their values and that’s how a republic works. Better luck next time if you don’t like what we got.

      The constant mantra that our present government somehow does not represent the legitimate will of the people and is ignoring or in violation of our constitution is nonsense. As long as the legislation passed by the majority is subject to review by the courts there is no violation of the constitution unless the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional and the ruling is ignored.  Since that hasn’t happened the constitutionally mandated process has not been violated.

      They may not like policies or legislation but there is no question as to the legitimacy  of our present government both in terms of legitimately representing the will of the majority of the electorate and  adhering to our system for passing legislation and allowing that legislation to be subject to judicial review with the Supreme Court as the final judge of constitutionality. Their claims to the contrary on this score are crap.

  8. Goldstein1 says:

    Any question requiring a definitive answer causes a squirm in Jane.  Check out Colorado Tea Party pg. on Utube and watch her wriggle out of a legitimate question on legislation, homosexuality & faithbased organizations: http://www.youtube.com/user/Co

    “Social issues” like homosexuality might not matter to you but they matter to certain billionaires who spend money to advance their agenda.

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.