May 03, 2010 07:05 PM UTC
How Jane Norton lost the Primary (Part 1 of 3) (Not the year to be a DC insider)
12 Comments- by: H-man
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
The Republican and Independent electorate of Colorado are not happy campers. They feel the economy sucks and that government spending is out of control. They are frightened by huge deficits and don’t like bailouts. They feel like their liberties are being threatened. They feel that Republicans have lost their way and spent too much and don’t get them talking about Democrats. It is the party establishment that is to blame and the politicians that get sent back to Washington who look out after themselves and not their constituents. They feel like they have been lied to and they are not going to take it anymore.
Given that background, enters Jane Norton in September 2009.
She is well connected. Her husband, Mike has served as the US Attorney. She herself has been appointed to fill out a term as a state legislator and was selected to run and served as Lieutenant Governor of Colorado under Bill Owens. In 2008 she was co-chair of the McCain campaign in Colorado. Her sister, Judy is a successful DC lobbyist and her brother in law Charlie Black is one of the top money men in DC and was a senior advisor to John McCain in his presidential campaign.
If Norton was to be successful in these times she needed to be humble, play down her self-importance moneyed background and bone up on the issues. She needed to distance herself from the people associated with what the electorate thought was bad and explain what she would do to make things right. She needed to address three issues.
First, she needed to make it seem that she was not part of the problem. She did not want to be perceived as someone selected for them by the party establishment that the electorate blames for getting them into this mess. Second, she needed to demonstrate that she was a fiscal conservative that could be trusted to go back to DC and cut what they see as government waste. Third, she needed to be perceived as a likeable, honest human being, just like her constituents. The manner in which she has handled each issue has backfired and doomed her campaign.
One of the first things someone wants to know about a candidate is why they want to run for that office. That question was answered for Jane in October in the Denver Post in an article written by Lynn Bartels entitled “Jane Norton has GOP friends in high places as she runs for the US Senate”:
(T) he campaign’s roots reach inside the beltway.
Norton has told various Republicans that McCain called and urged her to run. (emphasis supplied)
Following his failed presidential bid, McCain returned to the Senate, where he has emerged as a sort of “political godfather,” according to Politco.com. The Arizona lawmaker is recruiting candidates, raising money on their behalf and introducing them to his top donors, Politico reported.
McCain’s office did not respond to a request for comment about his efforts to recruit Norton, who served as the McCain campaign’s 2008 Colorado co-chair.
Norton also is presumed to have the support of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which reserved two domain names for her campaign. (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Republican Jane Norton touts her Colorado roots on the stump but her Senate campaign exudes East Coast connections, from U.S. Sen. John McCain to her high-powered D.C. sister and brother-in-law.
The $509,779 Norton raised in her first 16 days of campaigning reads like a Who’s Who of the Republican Party: The campaign managers for McCain’s 2008 and Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential bids and political action committees for 10 GOP senators, including McCain and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, donated to Norton. In Colorado, former Sen. Bill Armstrong and former Rep. Bob Beauprez contributed, as did billionaire Phillip Anschutz, who once employed Norton’s potential Democratic foe, Sen. Michael Bennet.
That her campaign is receiving help from the McCain machine is not a surprise.
Norton’s brother-in-law, Charlie Black, was a key insider in that presidential campaign and helped McCain choose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Black’s wife, Judy Black, who is Norton’s sister, is a policy director at Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck’s Washington office.
The Blacks last month hosted a D.C. fundraiser for Norton attended by about a dozen U.S. senators.
Norton’s campaign is being run by Norm Cummings, who once worked for the National Republican Committee and served as a regional director in 1988 for George H. W. Bush’s presidential campaign.
Another thing you probably would not do if you were Jane Norton would be treating your fundraising events in DC as high society events and publishing them back in Colorado. Her first fundraiser, held at the Monocle which is know in DC as an insider’s haunt (Washington Post write up: “The Congressional Record may not show it, but intentions are spoken her, alliances formed and deals sealed”) was forwarded to the Colorado Statesman, which published the following:
KEEP AN EYE ON JANE NORTON AT THE MONOCLE
Any wonder U.S. Senate hopeful Jane Norton has been raking in the money? A cool $500,000-plus in just sixteen short days before the filing period ended. Not bad, and with almost 600 donors she’s off to a great start.
On Tuesday, Sept. 29, the savvy Republican candidate was hanging just a stone’s throw from the rear entrances to the Hart and Dirksen Senate office buildings on D St. where the well known Monocle Restaurant has been attracting pols from both parties since 1960.
But this get-together at Washington, D.C.’s popular Capitol Hill icon was expressly for Norton’s honor on this evening. Afterall, (sister) Judy and (brother-in-law) Charlie Black were part of the host committee for Norton’s reception upstairs in one of the Monocle’s private rooms. Judy, by the way, is a lobbyist with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, and Charlie has been a high powered lobbyist over the years and most recently John McCain’s chief advisor during the 2008 presidential campaign… And you don’t think they couldn’t attract an A-list group of donors for their kid sister?
Requested host contributions consisted of $2,500 from a PAC and $1,000 from an individual. Non-hosts were invited at $1,000 for PACS and $500 for individuals for the one and a half hour cocktails and appetizers.
Norton herself told us that 12 or 13 U.S. Senators were in attendance, and the restaurant had set up for about 70 guests total. (emphasis supplied.)
Unfortunately the ensuing conversation at the event was just too hush hush for even our most intrepid spy. Our RSVP to the Aristeia Group specified Off the Record and we know what that means.
So with our ears voluntarily plugged, we naturally had to pay special attention to the other reception details, such as the food.
Here’s what guests munched on at Norton’s fundraiser at the Monocle that night: A display of Genoa Salami, and assorted domestic and imported cheeses and fruits; grilled and oven roasted vegetables with asparagus and pesto; Chicken quesadillas with sour cream and avocado, tenderloin of beef (with horseradish cream, of course), cremini mushrooms stuffed with creamed spinach and parmesan; Salmon Tartar on cucumber rounds; and Belgian Endives filled with goat cheese, chutney and walnuts.
There was an open bar with domestic and imported beers, varietal wines, sparkling water, sodas and premium brand cocktails.
This is all our readers get to what their political palates for now.
Not exactly Beer and Burgers in the backyard.
Jane seems to have stopped leaking her parties to the press but they still make the rounds on the internet. On February 23rd a DC fundraiser was thrown for her by some of her friends:
Jane Norton (R-Colo.) – Candidate for U.S. Senate
Fundraising Luncheon: 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
Location: The Townhouse at 300 Maryland Ave., N.E., Washington, D.C.
Hosted by: Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, The Honorable Jon Kyl, The Honorable John Thune, The Honorable Lamar Alexander and Robbie Aiken, Phil Anderson, Judy and Charlie Black, Doyce Boesch, Cesar Conda, Julie Cram, Smitty Davis, Mimi Dawson, Frank Donatelli, Marty Gold, Marilyn Harris, Susan Hirschmann, Aleix Jarvis, Susan Nelson, Fern O’Brian, Ed Rahal, Mercy and Matt Schlapp and Jade West
Cost: Host $2,500 PAC/$1000 Individual or Attend $1,000 PAC/$500 Individual
To help out those who might not be familiar with these “Colorado” friends of Norton, here is who they are:
Mitch McConnell – Minority Leader US Senator Kentucky
Jon Kyl – Senator from Arizona
John Thune – Senator from South Dakota
Lamar Alexander – Senator from Tennessee
Robbie Aiken – DC Lobbyist
Phil Anderson – DC Lobbyist, named one of Washington’s top lobbyists 2002-2009
Judy and Charlie Black – Jane’s sister and brother in law – Top DC lobbyist and McCain campaign senior advisor and DC lobbyist.
Doyce Boesch – leading lobbyist for Strategic Health Care in DC
Cesar Conda – Founder of Navigator Global, same lobbying firm that employs Phil Anderson, above
Julie Cram, DC Lobbyist
Smitty Davis, DC Lobbyist and Partner at DC law firm Akin Gump
Mimi Dawson, DC Lobbyist
Frank Donatelli, DC Lobbyist
Marty Gold, DC Lobbyist and Partner at DC law firm Covington and Burling
Marilyn Harris, DC Lobbyist for among others Marathon Oil
Susan Hirschmann, DC Lobbyist and ex-chief of staff of Tom DeLay who retired around the time of the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Aleix Jarvis, Lobbyist and former aide to Senator Lindsay Graham.
Susan Nelson, DC Lobbyist with McCain connections
Fern O’Brian, DC Lobbyist
Ed Rahal, DC Lobbyist
Mercy and Matt Schlapp, Matt – DC Lobbyist, wife Mercy TV host
Jade West – DC Lobbyist for National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
Back in Colorado, less than four weeks later, on Tuesday March 16th the caucuses took place.
Jane Norton had been polling of Buck ahead 45-15 in the fall. She had outspent him 4-1, and she was up on TV, Wiens was up on radio. Buck was not.
The results of the Caucus: Buck 38%, Norton 37% and Wiens 16%.
Last week, the Colorado State Republican Chairman was interviewed in Politico.
Wadhams notes that the mere appearance of the NRSC’s involvement in Colorado wounded GOP front-runner Jane Norton at the outset, when it appeared the committee had reserved several domain names for her campaign website. Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck was on the verge of pulling out of the race in August but said he was swayed by “hundreds” of e-mails and phone calls encouraging him to defy the NRSC’s wishes.
“Since then, they’ve been very uninvolved. They pulled back after that. I think committees and elected officials are going to find that they’re going to have to be much more careful about how they support candidates. The line they cannot cross is appearing to coronate a candidate. It’s a minefield to walk through,” Wadhams said
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…
Wadhams clearly understates the extent of continuing NRSC and DC involvement, but correctly identifies the problem.
In the case of Norton, the wounds were largely self inflicted.
Backed out of an interview with moi.
In all seriousness, this comes back to coming across as a principled local conservative – if that was her approach there would have been interviews with me and a number of other bloggers. Genuine is key this election.
If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
I think she should have done an interview with you David but in response to the majority of this diary by H-man, I’m just not there. She should be hob knobbing with the rich and powerful and getting money. But as AJB said, she also needs to be a heck of a lot of faking back home to come across as your average Jane.
And whether or not that means not publicizing her events (I don’t mind them as much because it “shows” that she has the connections to win…or did if she would have played them right) but she needed to go to a Sky Sox game with a giant foam finger held high into the air and a cold beer in her other hand and a big fat American flag pin on her lapel; something, anything to make her not come off as elitist.
The problem I see is not that she has friends in high places. The problem is if you lead with I am the chosen one, John McCain asked me to run, etc. backtracking to I am one of the masses doesn’t work.
She should never have said I am the only one that can raise funds because it begets the question, why? She should never said I have 35 endorsements from senator’s or whatever the number was. She has to run as an outsider and it undercuts the genuineness of running as an outsider.
Her whole campaign has been run as if there is an inevitability to her selection. All the important people endorsed her. Why? Because she is important. Call it arrogance. Call it hubris. But her campaign oozed that feeling and it turned people off.
I think we may be saying the same thing, just differently.
With the caveat that I’m poorly versed in Republican politics in this state, my reaction to her campaign announcement was “Who?”
To me, she comes off as an easily manipulated, rubber-stamp Republican. I’m sure she’s nice and all, but I never hear her described as dynamic, energetic, shrewd, or clever. She’s poorly known, so she can be marketed however her campaign committee wants. She only appears in controlled settings with small sympathetic audiences.
Unfortunately, as H-man says, she started the campaign running as an experienced insider with a lot of money behind her. If Buck had quit, that might have worked. Alas, he didn’t. Now, he’s enough of a threat that she’s petitioning on the ballot.
Do you really think the hundreds of thousands of primary voters have paid attention to all this insider, blogger nonsense? Most haven’t begun to pay attention to the race and right now they haven’t heard of Ken Buck. That means there is still plenty of time for both campaigns to frame their opponents and define their own image. Plus, Norton brought on Rich Beeson–one of the best political operatives in America. Additionally, don’t you all think that the anti-Norton vote could be split by Wiens and Buck in a three-way primary? Wiens has a much better profile south of Denver where Buck is not very well known.
The state assembly is in a few weeks. Norton will not be there.
Has everyone paid attention to all this stuff? No.
Has most of the info that will be used to frame the issues come out? Yes.
To the extent that primary voters are going to look for a fiscal conservative and want to choose a candidate who will stand up for them, and is someone chosen by them instead of chosen for them, Jane Norton can’t win that race.
If the race is going to be decided by who adopted a puppy dog, maybe she wins that race.
I think everyone knows what is going to be in the Republican primary voters head in August which is why Norton is now saying “Buck is not a fiscal conservative and he is the DC insider”. Her polling tells her those are the issues, she is getting killed by her past and that is why she pulled out of the assembly.
They go do a Google search. And when they do they will be led to all of this existing content. That will not work well for Jane.
Google may be big for the Coloradopols set, but everyone who posts on here has made up their mind on the primaries. Old people make up a much larger percentage of voters in midterms and they don’t google to get their candidate information. They don’t read state politics blogs.
What Republican primary voters care about is beating the Democrat–which Jane has the resources to do and Buck simply does not. Jane has proven that people are willing to support her campaign financially and Ken Buck has not shown the same. He raised barely 100k last quarter. That’s not even half the amount it costs to run a broadcast TV ad. It’s not going to be a cheap race, that’s for sure. Before you go harping about DC money, 85% of Jane’s donations are from Colorado but the majority of money spent by or for Buck has come from shadowy 527s with no public accountability based in….you guessed it….Washington, DC.
Voters want to see candidates take responsibility for ads run for them–they won’t appreciate shadowy DC special interest groups running ads because the candidate can’t raise enough money to pay for even a radio ad.
MHP:
Your point re google is well taken, demographically.
Your point about money is of some validity. As of April 1 Norton had 200K more than Buck in cash on hand. She has also run through money like a drunken sailor and gone down in the polls.
Your point about Jane’ money coming 85% from Colorado is factually incorrect. About 40-50% of her money comes from out of state. DC and NYC are where most of that comes from. Just last quarter 20% of her money came from a financial services bundler from Greenwich, Conn who has a hedge fund. If you want to know about that here’s a link. http://www.dscc.org/news?type=…
If you want to see where her money comes from, go to fec.gov. The 355K she has in PAC money comes from out of state.
And by the way, none of the “Buck” 527’s are based in DC. The money that supports them is said to come from Colorado.
The problem with repeating Norton talking points, is you end up saying stuff that can be proven to be untrue. No disrespect to you, but check out the facts. Don’t rely on Jane and Sarah, it can get embarrassing.
Jane Norton $564,619(66%)$288,900 (34%)
Ken Buck $303,649 (70%) $130,709 (30%)
Buck has virtually the identical amount of in-state vs. out-of-state funding as Norton.
Last I checked Americans for Job Security was based in Alexandria, VA, which is a rich DC suburb. Googlemaps is your friend.
But what is most interesting is Michael Bennet’s out of state funding. Having out-of-state donations represent almost 60% of your donations this early in the race is very telling about who Bennet represents.
Michael Bennet $1,081,610(43%)$1,459,383(57%)
MHP
Using your math Jane has raised only $853,516.
According to the FEC she has raised over $1.8 million. Included in that $1,876,690 is $355,921 from PACs. That is out of state money.
Here is the summary from the FEC site for Norton:
Total Receipts: $1,876,690
Transfers From Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Contributions: $1,515,769
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Committees: $355,921
Contributions from Party Committees $5,000
Candidate Contribution: $0
Candidate Loans: $0
Other Loans: $0
Total Disbursements: $1,232,348
Latest Cash On Hand: $643,342
I didn’t go through line by line which is why I estimated it at about 40-50% from out of state but when you include the out of state PAC money (19% of her total donations) you can see it is pretty close to an even split. Not anywhere near 85% in state you posted.
Where did you get that 85% number from?