By June of this year, it was clear things were not going the way that onetime GOP Senate frontrunner Jane Norton had intended. In the fall of 2009, Norton’s entry into the Senate race was briefly seen as salvation for Republicans, then choosing between several longshot bids–including “Tea Party” favorite and Weld Country DA Ken Buck.
That is, until the Republican base got wind of it.
Norton’s relations with the GOP base, and the “Tea Party” in particular, never got off the ground. Norton was immediately flagged by conservatives as a “RINO” for her support as Lt. Gov. under Bill Owens for 2005’s Referendum C, the TABOR time-out measure that split the party along ideological vs. pragmatic lines. Later, Norton’s silly claims to have “cut spending” while working for the state were feasted upon by her Republican opponents and liberal groups alike.
Norton tried desperately to frame herself on the “Tea Party” side of issues relevant to the GOP primary, but it always took on the air of contrivance–she fumbled through answers to loaded questions about President Barack Obama and the Democratic agenda, firing off inarticulate bromides such as “the rights of terrorists are more important in this Administration than the lives of American citizens”–the proof, of course, being health care reform.
None of it was working. Buck was holding on.
So in mid-June, Norton’s campaign rolled out with fanfare a new web homepage with a new theme–a dark, militaristic background with lots of soldier clip-art, and a new video (above) laying out Norton’s “position” on winning the war on terror. When we first saw this video, we were shocked by its brazen employment of jet engine noises to invoke the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and headlines that criticized Obama for affirming that the war against terrorism is not a “war on Islam.”
As it turned out, the “shock” over this ad quickly gave way to contempt. Although it was meant to drag the GOP base back into Norton’s orbit, it didn’t help: too many still viewed it as contrived, and even many Republicans who gave the theme of this video honest consideration came away appalled. After all, it was President George W. Bush who first declared, and insisted throughout his presidency, that the war on terror was not a “war on Islam” or anything like it. We’ve often wondered whether Norton’s brother-in-law and campaign advisor Charlie Black, a top D.C. lobbyist with many clients in the Muslim world, knew about this ad and approved. If he did, that kind of seems to us to be something those clients might want to know about.
As for Norton, this move was a late gasp of a campaign that, for all its early aura of inevitability, was never able to make a connection with the primary voters she needed to win–and not through a lack of trying. It is bad decisions, this being just one, that complicate for us what some people think is an easy question: would Norton have beat Michael Bennet had she won the primary?
The answer is possibly–but she, like Buck, had some problems.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Dems Save The Day, Government To Stay Open
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Weld County Gerrymandering Case Pushes The Boundaries Of Home Rule
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: bullshit!
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
…but I doubt it cost her the primary nomination or even that many Republican votes. The sadder truth is that many probably weren’t that shocked by its insidious message. After all, why wouldn’t Obama be a terrorist sympathizer since he is a secret Muslim (dripping sarcasm)?
Norton’s handlers were apparently hoping to capitalize on misinformation about the Guantanamo issue rather than gunning for “shock and awe.” I’m sure they would have had a field day with the NY mosque controversy. Contrary to what you suggest about Charlie Black’s sensitivities, he was probably the one responsible for the ad. Among his “Muslim clients” was Ahmed Chalabi, who is infamous for feeding the U.S. faulty intelligence before the Iraq War. Black most likely epitomizes the anti-Arab sentiment within the GOP.
The ad and the last few months of her campaign efforts smacked mostly of desperation from a candidate that knew she was losing ground with her own Republican base.
The writing was on the wall after she lost to Buck at caucus. Bringing Penry on board to salvage her campaign was the final nail in the coffin.
Why don’t you just say she eats babies and be done with it
She skins them and wears their scalps as slippers.
funny you should mention him. He promised the US an entire freaking army and the Pentagon bought it. When the US arrived prepped for the invasion a handful of doped up guys on horseback showed up saying they were Chalabis army. I read about this in State of Denial by Bob Woodward.
Needless to say his influence, or lack thereof, in Iraq was actually next to nothing. Chalabi is a joke.
recently. Chalabi really thought he would walk in and take over the government and the country and Bush’s administration was more than ready to let him do it. The lack of planning at the beginning of the war in every single area is simply stunning. I strongly recommend that book. It’s phenomenal.
Shows the tunnel vision of the administration in trusting a crooked source for their information. Charles Glass wrote an excellent article for Harper’s in 2003 about Chalabi as well.
that one is going on my list !
And surprisingly humorous. Rajiv Chandrasekaran lived in Iraq for two years and was the only journalist to live outside the Green Zone. He focuses on the CPA under Paul Bremer and had access to staffers and heads of each of the Iraqi departments (such as Finance) that Bremer attempted to privatize in less than 24 months.
Disastrous from start to finish–ought to be a primer in the DOD and the Pentagon in how not to run a post war operation.
I don’t think the Bush DoD was much interested in running a “good” operation. I think it was more interested in awarding crony contracts.
to turn it into a US style capitalist society.
Chandrasekaran provides stunning accounts of gross ignorance about the region, the placement of 20 something year old Republican operatives to replace seasoned Middle Eastern diplomats in the CPA and the egotistical hubris from Bremer on up to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. I doubt many Republicans will be able to read this book since it explodes the last myth they hold dear to that the Bush administration had a fucking clue what they were doing in Iraq.
Sorting through the leftist propaganda, there are two things I agree with:
1. Norton was viewed and shallow/phony by many Republicans, and lacking in conservative credentials
2. Norton might not have beat Bennet either. The lesson of 2010 is that the Democrat Lie Machine is alive and well in Colorado, and remains very effective.
Hardball politics by GOP = GOOD
Hardball politics by Dems = BAD
Nice code of ethics you have, buddy.
were too liberal and clean for you? Ok…
I’m ready to admit ColPols overstates the significance of this ad if you’re willing to admit the GOP continues to shamelessly politicize 9/11.
We’re not saying that this ad is the reason Norton lost by any means–it only had relatively limited online exposure. But it’s a good waypoint for a campaign desperate to prove conservative credentials that were, by that point in the race, for all the reasons we listed, unsalvageable. This was an example of a systemic problem.
tuned into Colorado’s Republican party, she would have known that she was sunk from the very moment that BJWilson threw the weight of his endorsement and support behind Ken Buck.
Just as in the primary Norton almost certainly would not have connected with votersmin the general. And her campaign would have continued to be a clusterfuck.
I think her coremproblem was she didn’t really know why she wanted to be Senator. And secondary, no burning desire to win (due in part to not having a why to drive her).
n/t