President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
June 17, 2010 01:09 AM UTC

Jane Norton Goes to War

  • 178 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Up until today, the website of Senate candidate Jane Norton was a typical purple-and-mountain Colorado politics affair–frankly a bit on the cookie-cutter side designwise and kind of boring, not a site you’ll be talking about after you visit. Don’t get us wrong, after all the fun we’ve had over the years with varying degrees of website ignominy, that’s probably a good thing.

No longer boring, anyway, as her rendezvous with destiny approaches (spelled p-r-i-m-a-r-y):

The video from that inspiring new homepage:

UPDATE: Sorry, we were going to avoid editorializing on the video spot that’s the focus of this new homepage–but the jet engine thing is just…well, it’s notably tasteless.

UPDATE #2: We got to thinking about it, and it occurred to us that a “war on Islam” would actually be a very bad thing. Somewhere between leading off with that particular headline and the violent interruption of Norton’s “never forget” boilerplate by the screeching of jet engines, we begin to realize that a terribly low road has been taken here.

Tweet
Share

Comments

178 thoughts on “Jane Norton Goes to War”

          1. pour a half bottle of cryptofascism on top. (Not much nutrition, but plenty of calories.)

            Ken Buck – at least – is a well known connoisseur of Mexican food.  

  2. So she wants to go to war with Islam? That’s what I gathered from this video. Focusing simply on eradicating extremists is apparently not good enough for Jane. The Obama administration has stopped using the word Jihad when referring to the war because it’s an affront to mainstream Islam. Jihad is a legitimate belief for the Muslim people and the extremists have distorted it and the Obama administration has purposely moved away from it. We have to have the mainstream of the Muslim people on our side if we want to end the reign of Islamic extremists, but “Plane” Jane here would obviously like to end Islam altogether.

      1. Jihad is not terrorism. Islamic extremists have distorted Jihad for their own purpose. You should educate yourself on the principles of a religion before exposing yourself as an uneducated bigot.

        1. …instead of repeating liberal talking points. I have actually researched this a little bit.

          Sura 9:5 – “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize  them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush”

          I could quote verse after verse – here’s a link to get started:

          http://www.letusreason.org/isl…

          Even you if you can somehow make a twisted argument that Jihad merely represents an “internal struggle” (which you can’t based on the Koran), the fact is that fundamental Islamists such as those who attacked the World Trade Center don’t interpret it that way. And that fact alone means that we will be dealing with terrorism for a very long time.

          2. Genesis 38:24  And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

            Exodus 12:29  And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

            Jeremiah 19:9  And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.

            Boy, this was easy. Should I continue?

            What was your point, again?

            1. You obviously can’t prove that Jihad is not terrorism. That was my point, if you had read the comment above.

              But to respond to your quotes, those were historical, one time events. Nowhere does the Lord command Christians to slaughter Muslims. Try as you might, you will not be able to equate Jihad to anything in Christianity. (And before anybody brings up the crusades, let me just say that that was not commanded by God and can’t be supported anywhere in Scripture, while Jihad is most definitely supported in the Koran.)

              1. OK, I’m not going to tell you what’s wrong with that sentence, because I want to see if you can figure it out for yourself.

                NO HINTS, PEOPLE.

              2. advocates Killing it’s enemies or non believers.

                Thats the Point you are missing BJ.

                Vilifying Muslims because they/we are currently dealing with their zealots, is ignoring history.

                at one time people came here to America (Illegally BTW, as the natives objected then too) to escape persecution from other religions. (or more precisely, other brands of Christianity)

                At one time Christians Hunted each other. The Spanish Inquisition is one example. The founding of UTAH is another.

                Pure Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity do not promote killing of others. only the zealots from those religions promote the Killing.

                Christianity has it’s fare share of crazed Zealots. Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Oral Roberts and Ted Haggard to name a few.

                  2. when that doctor was murdered (In his church)in Kansas. by a zealot who was egged on by the likes of Fox news, Bill O’Riley.

                    Dobson advocates child abuse.

                    my point was Christianity has its modern day crazies too.

          3. (1) The most common definition of infidel is considered to be those who neglect the poor–that kind of sounds like some of the people in this country, doesn’t it?

            (2) There are a limited number of references indicating that it is okay to kill non-believers.  However, a footnote indicates that infidel in this context refers to a specific battle/war (when Muslims and Non-muslims were trying to kill each other),  doesn’t apply across time.

                    2. I’m quite certain the majority are peaceful, just like you. But a small number of people who interpret Jihad literally out of 1.8 billion people adds up to a lot of terrorists.

                    3. And I agree – I appreciate your clarification

                      I personally think it is around 0.1% of 1.8 billion, which still adds up to over 100,000

                      Most importantly, it would be terrible to declare war against 1.8 billion, when we are really dealing with 100,000 to 200,000

          4. Why don’t you research ACTUAL Islam and its principles just a little tiny bit. There are some good books out there. Pick one up.  

                1. of soft stool spurting out of Brainless Jelly’s various indistinguishable orifices simultaneously may be music to its own ears, but, you are right sxp, it is nothing more than mildly unpleasant background noise to the rest of us, accompanied by a somewhat more unpleasant stench.

      1. When Bush was president, the war in Afghanistan was a disaster. Now that Obama sent more troops (and yet we’re seeing more deaths, Karzai possibly defecting to the Taliban, and no long term gains), suddenly the war is just hunk dory. Talk about playing politics!

        1. Iraq was the disaster because of taking our eye off of the ball in Afghanistan.

          All because bushjr wanted to have a bigger legacy than daddy.

          Yeah Us over here on the left sure do hate peace. All that wanting our troops home safe is so hypocritical to those on the right. all those republicans (like Norton) that actually believe in perpetual war.

            1. Sure, there were some fringe folks just like on your side (you know: the folks who want to go to war with all Islam). But by and large, liberals recognized that we had been attacked by an extremist state and we would fight back.

              But then Bush decided to avenge his daddy, etc. and squander a trillion dollars and thousands of lives (hundreds of thousands, if you count the Iraqis) on his Iraqi adventure.

              Obama hasn’t made a colossal mistake like that.

        2. Nor terribly many who think it’s going well.  

          Bush served us poorly twice by going to Iraq – once by wasting money on a war against a country that had no Al Qaeda presence and presented no immediate threat to us, and again by diverting needed resources from Afghanistan, which he let simmer for years.

          “Fixing” the situation in Afghanistan may be impossible.  Obama was presented by his generals in the field with a possibility of making the situation better, and he took it knowing that a whole lot of things had to come together just right in order to stabilize the situation.  So far it looks like that might be failing, but it was worth the try.  If we get to the end of the “surge” period and it’s looking like the effort is doomed to failure, it’s time to get out – no sense re-enacting the British and Soviet failures there.

            1. I find it hilarious/slash/depressing that people like you can’t learn anything from this disaster. ONE measly oil well accident is about to turn the Gulf of Mexico into a sterile cesspool and the economies of the South into a shambles – but for you it’s still “drill baby drill.”

              We need to wean ourselves off gasoline, period.

    2. …that’s something that every Leftie who voted for him seems to forget. And now, when the Right-Wing-o-Verse needs a talking point, gets throw out when needed:

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…

      And, he never flipped on Iraq. He was opposed to the “Blown ’em Up” approach that both the Bush WH and Repubs on Congress were shrieking for. Instead, we got a comprehensive COIN approach that included the population in the effort to shut down A-Q.

      If they have books in your part of the Right-Wing-O-Verse, pick up a copy of The Gamble by Thomas Ricks. I know Rush or Hannity didn’t write it, but maybe you could make an exception and read it before you spout your frogwash here.

            1. You challenge SSG_Dan on things military at your own peril. It will be interesting to watch him dissect you, but it’s messy and it will take you a while to heal. Just sayin’.

        2. BJ posted “he sent more troops to Afghanistan. This was one of the issues he flipped on” — wrong; as SSG explained, and as the facts show, Obama was consistently in favor of more troops in Afghan during the campaign. He didn’t “flip” on that issue, as much as BJ wants to falsely claim Obama flipped after learning lessons in “mission accomplished”  from GW Bush

      1. L’il Bush left everything in such good shape.  

        He understood that America don’t need no allies. He understood that a war in Iraq would be a cakewalk, like his Defense Sec’t said “Who knows? Six days, six weeks, I doubt six months…” then, after greeting us a liberators, the people would spread freedom and markets all over the land.  

    2. The simple Republican strategy: Use fear

      The comprehensive Republican strategy: Use fear, arm everyone, and declare war on somebody.  

    4. .

      Apparently you think the sound of an F-16 passing overhead is intended to evoke memories of the attacks on 9/11 ?  

      That sound is included as a reminder that our military is still fighting in A’stan today.

      .

      2. Hard to know what she meant exactly, since Norton leaves us in the dark at that point in the video.

        If it was meant to indicate Afghanistan, why not show us Afghanistan?  

      3. In the context of the entire ad, and with her spoken words, there is no question in my mind she is purposefully evoking the fear/terror of the 9/11 attacks.  Listen to her words – very sad that voters are being subjected to this.

      4. Sounds like a 737 or 747.

        I’ve lived under and around more fighter jet flight paths than most people I know.  That is not F-16 audio. It’s not a fighter jet.  I t could be military – but it doesn’t have afterburners.

        try this on:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

        or these:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

        I generally prefer twin engine – but the F16 has a very distinctive sound.  That ain’t it.  They’re clearly going for the commercial airliner sound to evoke 9/11.  Not fighter jets to evoke the success we’ve had since.

  6. It’s a freakin’ copy of the poster for the XBox Game Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2!!!

    http://www.amazon.com/Call-Dut…

    Ye Gods, have we sunk down to this in the era of Political advertising – CoDMW2 is fun, so my campaign must be fun to! War is cool on an XBox, so real war must be jsut as cool!

    1. if it were a “freakin’ copy” there wouldn’t be a scripted font.  the same uses of black and white do not make it the same, even a design freak like yourself should know that…

  8. Stop being afraid.

    If you want to win the war against terrorists, marginalize them, steal the center, deny them easy propaganda victories, get them down to a small fringy element that you can excise as needed.

    I certainly not terrorized by a bunch of killers. Angry yes, concerned of course, but I am not afraid. After 9-11, after people I knew died, the only thing I was terrified is that in my rage I would do something stupid.  As it was I became a lawyer because of 9-11; jury is still out if it was stupid or not.

    1. Ms. Norton appears to want to wage a war on anyone who happens to be Islamic. She has forgotten that one of the first things President George W. Bush did after 9/11 was to go to an Islamic mosque in Washington, D.C. to proclaim that the United States did not have any intention of waging war on Islam. Apparently, Ms. Norton disagrees with that policy and welcomes a general war against Islamic believers. Her position is foolish and would lead us into a war we cannot win.

      1. The war is on radical Islamist terrorists, not “on Islam”. “Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam” is a ridiculous statement from Reuters, because Bush didn’t declare war on Islam either.

  9. While Jane Norton exploits 9/11 with Karl Rove re-run ads, Barack Obama’s administration is actually killing terrorists.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…


    Obama has ordered a dramatic increase in the pace of CIA drone-launched missile strikes into Pakistan in an effort to kill al-Qaeda and Taliban members in the ungoverned tribal areas along the Afghan border. There have been more such strikes in the first year of Obama’s administration than in the last three years under President George W. Bush, according to a military officer who tracks the attacks.

    Suffice to say, Jane Norton is full of shit.  

  10. Def: The systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.  Terror def:  the overwhelming feeling of fear or anxiety.

    Norton is using thinly veiled references to 9-11 (jet airplane noises) to encourage fear and anxiety.  And it sure seems systematic, part of a broad marketing campaign for her candidacy.  I guess its only terrorism if its used by the evil doers to achieve their evil goals (because they hate our freedom.)  If its used for a just cause (to Get Norton elected), it is just political speech.  

  11. Norton wants to

    (1)declare a war with all Muslims. Let’s just make it that much easier for al-Qaeda to recruit footsoldiers.

    (2)  As if declaring our energy and foreign policies haven’t made it easy enough for terrorists to recruit. Apparently it’s still too hard, so let’s throw people in jail for no reason–that ought to make it easier.

  12. Many people are UNemployed.

    Many people are concerned about a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Many people are concerned about taxes.

    But, Jane Norton wants to talk about the “war on terror”. This is NOT on the radar of the average voter.

    P.S. She needs blepharoplasty to appear more open and friendly.

      1. I don’t always agree with Bennet, Romanoff, or Buck – but all three are focused on the issues we face, and discussing them thoughtfully.

        Jane is trying to divert us because she has nothing to add to the conversation.

          1. You’re in a dark alley in Islamabad and run in to Osama Bin Laden.  You have a cell phone in one hand and a Glock in the other.  What do you do?

            1. rip his heart out through his chest. Take a bite of it. and then use the cell phone to take a picture and post it on Coloradopols.

              But then I’m a liberal.

              If you ran in to Osama Bin Laden you would pay some opimium dealers to watch him (Tora Bora) while you shot random guys walking down the street because they looked like “A-rab Terrists” and then when UBL got a way you would blame (?).

              But then you are probably a conservative.

    3. Only if you have the same suggestion for male candidates.  Do you?

      Some of us females will take a pass on plastic surgery.  

      Maybe Jane could just wear some Sarah Palin designer eyeglasses to get the needed effect . . .

      1. That was kind of out-of-nowhere, wasn’t it?

        Can we all just agree that Jane Norton is a completely whackjob whenever she isn’t utterly clueless, regardless of her stems or her eyelids?

  13. To start a video with the quote “Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam” and play it with the hint that Jane Norton disagrees with such notions???

    Okay… so in other words, Jane Norton WANTS a war against Islam?

    Fine. Some people want that…. good for them…

    With that said, now brings up why this video is prejudice – why do we want to go to war with Islam?

    Jane Norton sure didn’t directly explain why in her video – thus, are we left to assume that we need to go war with Muslims because they’re different? Because a lot of them are brown (although, the Bosnian Muslims would disagree, but I digress)? Because some of them have accents? And God forbid, some of them even wear turbans!?!?

    However, Jane Norton gave an indirect explanation of 911, which basically was that all Muslims should be slaughtered because they are all collectively guilty for the tragic attacks of 911

    Nonetheless, Jane Norton did not, in that video, expressly say why all Muslims should be killed – in turn, it leaves the door open to assume that they should be slaughtered on the basis of race, accent, heritage, turbans, etc – all prejudice reasoning

    On the other hand, if it is not prejudice, and she actually just wants to go to war with all Muslims on the basis of collective prosecution over 911, then that is an example of pure stupidity – after all, I, Muhammad Ali Hasan, am a Muslim who started Muslims For Bush and Muslims For America – do you want to go to war with me too, Jane?

    footnote links, just in case –

    http://www.MuslimsForBush.com

    http://www.MuslimsForAmerica.us

    So either Jane Norton is prejudice or she is stupid – not a good place to be for either

    Secondly – this is all a departure from George W Bush War On Terror policy

    Surely, there are things I didn’t like during Bush Administration times, particularly the Patriot Act and the restriction of civil liberties, but it is important to remember (and which is why I’m a Bush supporter) that Bush lifted sanctions against many Muslim countries, opened free trade, and even started working with people like Quaddafi and Libya in nabbing terrorists – the result?

    Over 90% of the Muslim countries in the world today have arrested Al-Quaida terrorists and turned them over to us – the only holdouts being Sudan, Iran, and Syria

    I don’t like the tribal practices that take place in Saudi Arabia under the name of Islam, but sanctioning those countries won’t end such custom – we have to engage, and to his credit, President W Bush did a terrific job of engaging the Muslim World and opening a dialogue

    Progress is being made with the Muslim World and that’s a terrific thing – now we have a US Senate candidate who is lazily trying to appeal to an electorate on the basis of complete prejudice?

    Thank God you’re losing, Lt Governor Norton….

    LAST NOTE: I have met many of our Armed Service men and women – God Bless them – the ones I’ve met see this war as a duty, not just of protecting America, but also liberating Muslims and allowing them to be free, as too many live under the shadow of brutal dictatorship – May God Bless our Armed Services, America, and the wonderful spirit our country has of wanting to make lives better

    3. I hope someone in the press asks some pointed questions to Jane Norton about this, following up on Mr. Hasan’s points.

      I think this commercial is the mark of a very desperate, scared politician. Jane Norton has the look of a dispirated marathoner towards the end of a race, puffing and panting and slowing down as another, more gifted runner pulls alongside and overtakes her.

      1. Yes politicians do and say things to get elected that are contemptuous. But this I don’t see any way to take this other than she is proposing worldwide religious war. If this is viewed as acceptable then we’re reached a horrible low in our political campaigns.

        Jane, you and your ilk have no monopoly on patriotism or love for this country. We all love America. And the fact that we want to use the rule of a law as a weapon in the war of ideas does not mean we are weak, it means we are strong.

        What you did is reprehensible. What is really sad is you don’t even understand why what you did is wrong.  

    4. but thanks for saying all of this.  Norton is attempting to bring out the worst racial and religious prejudices in people, for her political gain.  Absolutely inexcusable.  If leaders (present or future) in our country cannot distinguish between a religion and terrorism, we have a gravely serious problem.  

      1. Truth be told, Ali agrees with you on that point.  Why else would he be endorsing a candidate for US Senate that has never cut a government budget?

          1. County commissioners develop budgets for district attornies out of whole cloth.  It’s not as though they rely on advice, recommendations and data provided by the DA’s office.  

            Way to push off accountability.  Or shall we say…way to pass the Buck.

    7. Muhammad:

      Thank you for your eloquent analysis.  As we all know, republican voters in Colorado agree with you and they’re ready to embrace the “moderate-muslim message” — so long as it’s tempered with fiscal conservatism (i.e. tabor4life slogans, etc.).  Oh, wait.

      Which part of the ad does Ken Buck disagree with?

      Finally, can you help us all understand how we could get in line for a fellowship on the gravy train with biscuit wheels that is the Hasan Family Foundation?  

      Thanks.

      1. Here is what you can do if you are sincere.  Send an email to Buck and ask him.  He has a website, is on facebook, etc.

        Does Buck understand the war on terror etc is against terrorists and not against the religion of Islam?  I think so.  He has a son at West Point who is going to have the great good fortune of fighting it, so I expect he knows that.

        Is Buck a fiscal conservative? Yes.

        His undergradute degree is from Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School School of Public and International Affairs.  Just because he is conservative does not mean he does not understand international affairs much more than you apparantly do.  He has skin in this game much more than most and personally I think if more of the decision makers did, we might have some better decisions.  And no, I don’t count Biden’s kid’s service in the JAG corp.

        1. How did Buck’s son secure an appointment to West Point?  Surely not because his dad, the political insider, greased some skids for him with a member of Congress?  Was it Musgrave that secure the appointment for Buck Jr.?

          I appreciate you pointing out Mr. Buck’s credentials as an Ivy-League sophisticant. It helps balance the aww-shucks bullshit that he’s trying to get GOP voters to believe.  

          1. I would prefer my candidates to know what they are talking about but not wear it on their sleaves.  Perhaps you prefer candidates that pretend they know what they are talking about, but don’t.  If that is the case, Jane Norton is your gal.

    8. to write this up and submit it to the Denver Post, Boulder Daily Camera, and others.  This should not go unanswered and his answer is eloquent.

        1. You are being a complete dick while adding nothing to the conversation – quite an accomplishment. (And if you’re the best the Norton campaign can put on the web then it’s no wonder your campaign is in the toilet.)

    9. .

      When voting, folks act in private and can vote based on their fears and bigotries, without their neighbors ever finding out.

      I think I know the kind of folks who vote in GOP primaries fairly well.  You wanna see what I’m talking about ?  Read the comments attached to any WaPo article on the war in Afghanistan.  

      About 10-15% of those comments say that we are being too soft in our prosecution of that war — we should take the gloves off and get more violent and destructive; that’ll teach ’em a lesson they won’t soon forget.  

      Those are the hidden sentiments of a large chunk of the GOP primary voters.  

      If Norton can lock up that segment of the vote, she wins.

      .

      2. Honestly, the War On Terror isn’t the main issue for the primary voting Republicans

        If this was 2005, Jane Norton might win on this issue, but honestly, what is there to disagree about, in Obama’s handling of the War On Terror?

        1. He hasn’t closed Guantanamo

        2. He’s creating a ‘new’ Guantanamo lite in Afghanistan

        3. Troop numbers are not going down in either Iraq or Afghanistan

        4. Overtures of invading Pakistan next are starting

        Honestly – I know others will hate me for saying it – but Obama is about as hawkish as Dick Cheney right now

        In turn – the Tea Parties/912ers didn’t organize to oppose Obama’s handling of the War on Terror – they organized because they disagree with Obama’s tax policy and healthcare plans

        Granted, I could be wrong – but I think cutting spending and lowering taxes are the issues that will motivate primary voters in the GOP Senate primary, above going to war with Muslims – the fact that Norton refuses to apologize for C & D will continue to give Buck the win on issues of taxes and spending

        Overall….. war against Muslims? That’s so 2005….

        1. When it comes to matters related to the war on terror, would you advise your buddy Ken Buck to push an “I agree with Obama” message?

          Or would your advice be limited to things like dropping f-bombs at will and harassing young ladies in bathrooms?  

    10. Ali,

      Who are you to call Norton stupid? How many times did people call you out for a basic lack of financial understanding in your Treasurer’s race? You ran for a job you were totally unqualified for because you have nothing better to do with your parent’s money.

      You don’t know shit about Islam, just as you don’t know jack about financial issues.

      You’ve proven your total lack of even a basic comprehension about Islamic countries on TV clips you’ve posted to your website in the vain attempt to be the celebrity “conservative Muslim” on Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly’s shows. I’m sure the undisclosed grant you got from mommy and daddy’s foundation must have helped you learn a lot about being a talking head, but it sure hasn’t improved your grasp of facts.

      On Bill Maher’s show, to fulfill your need to hear yourself, you proclaimed that Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia were all democratic Muslim countries. I seriously doubt you could find them on a map, let alone understand a damn thing about their lack of democratic ways.

      At the time you spouted this inane statement, Malaysia was currently locking up its Deputy Prime Minister who had been a whistle-blower on corruption. To convict him they charged him with a completely made up charge of having gay sex with a young male which under Malaysian’s Islamic courts was deemed illegal. The press is completely controlled by the government, while bloggers are repeatedly held without trial for years at a time for insulting the Prime Minister to this day.

      In Singapore, they were also holding in jail a leader of their country’s democracy movement. Oh, and if you chewed gum or spit in public you were given 10 lashings of the cane. Real democratic.

      Even closer to a democracy at the time of your statement was Indonesia, who two years prior had massacred thousands of Timorese in Timor-Leste (East Timor), a largely Catholic nation formerly part of Indonesia.  Massacres are still perpetrated by the Indonesian military in West Papua and other places. And two years ago in the largest island in Indonesia, Sumatra, Sharia law became the law of the land with roving Sharia enforcement hoodlums.

      Clearly you don’t know shit about Islamic countries.

      Even more funny is your attempt to play the aggrieved Muslim–you like that token role when it gets you attention, don’t you? The problem is you’re the farthest thing from a Muslim I’ve ever seen. I seem to remember an article in Westword where you take your unmarried campaign manager into a hotel bathroom, proceed to engage in what you implied to the reporter were sexual acts, and then brag about them on the record. I’m pretty sure the Koran does not encourage or condone that. Never read about that in al-Ghazali’s works either and you should know who that is since you claim to be a Sufi.

    11. Norton clearly thinks foreign policy should be part of the discussion, and since Obama has allowed three terrorist attacks (Ft. Hood, underwear bomber, Times Square) to come to fruition on his watch, I’d say it’s an important subject.  

      As I read the quote about Obama, it reminded me of his apology tour and constant bowing in front of foreign leaders. Unfortunately some can read what they are preconditioned to read into it–but I think it makes it clear that Norton clearly disagrees with Obama’s constant apologizing for American strength.

      Attorney General Eric Holder just recently denied there was such a thing as “radical Islam.” Let’s be honest–there is a war with the Salafists and Wahabists as they are the most pure form of evil on this planet. What religion are Salafists and Wahabists? Muslim. 99.99% of Muslims are good people–I have many friends who are Muslim, but the War on Terror is primarily about wiping out a specific subset of Islam.  

      We can’t ignore the threat they pose by pretending they don’t exist and hoping that marginalizes them.  A reformation needs to happen within the Islamic community for the faith to ultimately come to terms with modern times. But until that happens, we must constantly be on attack against the militant groups organized around Salafist and Wahabist beliefs. So sorry, we are at war with part of the Islamic faith, whether that’s PC or not.

      1. Foreign policy should be part of the debate.  

        What did Norton’s ad tell you about her foreign policy views?

        It told me she disagreed with Obama on a number of issues.  So do I.

        It also told me she disagreed with his statement that this war is not against Islam.  On that issue I agree with him as did George Bush, Dick Cheney and every other non-bigot on the earth of any political persuasion.

        Feel free to disagree with Obama on that as Norton does, but if the bigotry shoe fits, wear it.

    3. It sort of sounds like your mom is implying that there’s 58 of them and 1 of us so we should just shut up? Hmmm.  Interesting strategy. Makes about as much sense as seeking, getting and publicizing a Doug Bruce endorsement.  

  15. the belief that Republicans are incapable of thinking creatively about problems and developing innovative solutions.

    In reality it is nothing more than a bash Obama piece intended to get conservative votes which given the Pavlovian response to 9/11 among conservative voters probably makes it a smashing success.

    1. Norton is not exactly a deep thinker.  Bigot or just stupid?  The jury is out.  

      Buck is neither a bigot nor stupid and what he has been saying has ben resonating which is why he went from behind by 22% to leading by 10% since March.

      The heartening thing is that Norton’s playing to the lowest common denominator tactic is not working in Colorado, at least in this race.  I think we can all agree that is good news.

      1. Does Ken Buck disagree with Jane Norton’s ad?  Which part?

        You’re right, Ken Buck is not a bigot.  You guys must be pretty excited to have Muhammad Ali Hasan extolling the virtues of Islam on Ken Buck’s behalf today.  

        2. Ali is standing up for what is right and against what is wrong, unfairly tarring innocents because of the acts of others in some kind of collective guilt. I am glad to stand with him and I am sure Ken Buck would be too.  

          By the way Buck recently indicated he would be supporting legislation recognizing the Armenian genocide which is not exactly popular in certain parts of the Muslim world, so I guess you can say he calls them as he sees them.

      2. that folks have noticed how unthinking conservatives are as a group?  You’re just using my comments to shamelessly plug Buck who is probably right down there in the dirt with Norton on the use of fear as a political selling point.  Conservatives don’t do new so all they have left is recycling old fear campaigns from the past.  Let’s see Buck Buck boy step up with an alternative energy plan that doesn’t involve offshore drilling.  I would seriously doubt Buck is cut from a different cloth than Norton when he is the Tea Party favorite.  Nothing says Republican status quo more than the endorsement of Neanderthals and loons.

          1. My point was that selling fear is a GOP stable and this ad is probably a hit with those who have been conditioned to respond to fear because they are already terrified of the terrorists.

            Let’s revisit this once we start seeing what kind of commercials Buck puts out providing he has any cash in his campaign account to do so.  The anonymous 527’s will probably pitch in but then we won’t know if it is his fear points or the tea partiers who pay for them.

            He might not be a racist and he might not approve of this commercial but I’m betting we will see a lot of fear coming out his campaign and I live in Gilpin where betting is an art form.

            1. If you had gotten to know Buck at all you would know he is a very rational thinker, not prone to emotional pitches. He is a DA, after all.

              1. Do you guys ever hold one position consistently?  My lord Buck has already been annointed by the mob and now you’re telling me that he isn’t on the same page with the crazy extremists?  If I see a cheesy Ken Buck “be very afraid” ad this summer can I gloat?

                1. between the Obama and Buck campaigns. Buck is just on the right while Obama was on the left. You may gloat very loudly if Ken Buck goes up with that type of ad. He has said in the past that he doesn’t think we can or should police the world. While he is pro-life and supports a strong defense, his main focus is fiscal conservatism and limited government.

                  1. I think we both agree that this ad is a piece of trash and Gale Norton is flailing away trying to be relevant in a time that has passed her by.

          1. which I had to dedicate to being outside tonight.  What a perfect Colorado evening.  I’ll watch it and let you know.

            I do have to wonder based on the number of random threads that you post Buck Buck love notes on if you get paid by the post or are on salary to his campaign?  Just askin’

            1. But thanks for askin’.

              From my first post on Pols I indicated I support Buck.

              Some on Pols tend to lump all Republicans together as the enemy, and there are certainly some nutso statements which have come out from some republicans (read Norton), so I have felt compelled to point out when I think good people are tarred by what others in the party do or say.

              So who is your horse in this race?

              1. but I’m not a Romanoff supporter so I intend to vote for Michael Bennet in the primary and the Democratic nominee in the general.  I think both of the Democratic candidates are qualified and I wouldn’t have a problem voting for either.  This is a continuity election for Democrats and Bennet has a chance to be an excellent senator with the experience he has gained over the last two years.  Ronald Reagan said to stay the course when his economic plans were being questioned and I have a similar sentiment today.

              2. “so I have felt compelled to point out when I think good people are tarred by what others in the party do or say.”

                The problem with this statement is that my original pointed was that Republicans/conservatives as a group have an ingrained herd instinct that prevents them from stepping outside their doctrine and actually be an independent thinker.  As we have seen in Congress over the last four years, Republicans vote as a monolithic block and independent thinking is not displayed.  Anyone who says something counter to Rush Limpbaugh is forced to apologize the next day.  Unregulated capitalism is literally a disaster but rather than adjust their philosophy and work for intelligent regulation what we get are apologies to BP.

                I guess I am a conservative bigot because I don’t see Ken Buck as being anything other than another foot soldier in the Republican army voting for their obstruction and filibusters every time.  I could be wrong but I don’t see any evidence in Congress that Republicans actually want to solve problems and work together for the benefit of our country.  Buck is just another in a long line of Republican lackeys who promise more extreme measures to keep their radical fringe happy.  Why should I vote for obstruction and unworkable out of the mainstream ideologies and ideologues?  

  16. To be fair, I’m not convinced this entire website was Josh Penry’s doing

    For what its worth, Josh Penry has been very good to the Muslim community in Colorado – he recently worked with them in securing permits, so they could host a rally against terrorism on the Capitol steps, as well as an opportunity for Muslims in Colorado to congregate and get positive press

    Josh has shown to be a friend to Colorado’s Muslim community – I honestly think that this campaign message is coming from advisors above Josh Penry

    1. I’m not exactly sure that your opinion matters one bit.  While you’re proud to proclaim over and over that you’re the highest polling republican in like 3 mountain counties…you have demonstrated that the Colorado GOP does not want to embrace you or whatever message you happen to be peddling.  If you want to lurk on this blog and accuse Jane Norton of being anti-muslim because she remembers that we’re at war with people sworn to destroy us, that’s your right.  However, no-one in your own party is buying it.  Watching the lefties on Co Pols knock each other over in a race to congratulate you for your hit against Jane Norton says it all.  

      Can’t wait to see your next film.  

      2. You seem to hate Ali’s religion or race.

        Do liberals support Ali’s right to exist as a 1st generation American–you bet.

        Do support his right to believe in the religion of his choice–absolutely.

        Do stand with him against prejudice and bigotry–every day.

        These are threshhold issues for on the left, and they should be for every American.

        Once we meet that threshhold we will immediately go back to thrashing him for his nonsensical veiws on budget and tax policy.

        As Americans we shouldn’t be arguing about whether Muslims have a right to exist or whether, which is what a “war on Islam” really means.  We should be arguing about tax and budget policy, though I wish the folks on the right would look up what “socialism” meant before they started throwing the word around–but that is a topic for another thread.


  18. Whatever is in the water in Florida seems to have found its way to over Colorado where frontrunner Jane Norton (R) is now desperately trying to knock down a challenge from Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck (R). Buck wasn’t supposed to go anywhere but his outsider bid has struck a chord with the conservative grassroots, garnered national attention and forced Norton into a race to the right. (Witness her latest web video on the war on terror.) Norton’s got the establishment backing, but right now, Buck’s got the momentum.

    Norton is desperate and this is how she moves to the right and tries to take back momentum.

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

64 readers online now

Newsletter

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