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
June 29, 2010 10:11 PM UTC

ALI HASAN: Is Jane Norton Senseless or Racist?

  • 99 Comments
  • by: Muhammad Ali Hasan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The Colorado Statesman invited me to write a guest editorial, regarding Jane Norton’s recent campaign against Islam.

I was proud to write this piece and I hope it further contributes to making the GOP a greater Party.

As published by the Colorado Statesman on June 29, 2010, written by Muhammad Ali Hasan:

Nothing has hurt the GOP more than Republican candidates who appear senseless or racist – Jane Norton, candidate for the U.S. Senate, has managed to appear as both.

In a redesign of her campaign theme, Norton’s Web site now carries a video that starts with the bold quote, “OBAMA DOCTRINE TO MAKE CLEAR NO WAR ON ISLAM – REUTERS, 5.26.10.” The quote plays over a chorus of dark sounds, communicating that Norton disagrees with Obama – she doesn’t want to go to war against ‘radical Islam’ or ‘fundamentalist Muslims’ – no, Norton wants to go after “Islam.”

The Colorado Statesman invited me to write a guest editorial, regarding Jane Norton’s recent campaign against Islam.

I was proud to write this piece and I hope it further contributes to making the GOP a greater Party.

As published by the Colorado Statesman on June 29, 2010, written by Muhammad Ali Hasan:

Nothing has hurt the GOP more than Republican candidates who appear senseless or racist – Jane Norton, candidate for the U.S. Senate, has managed to appear as both.

In a redesign of her campaign theme, Norton’s Web site now carries a video that starts with the bold quote, “OBAMA DOCTRINE TO MAKE CLEAR NO WAR ON ISLAM – REUTERS, 5.26.10.” The quote plays over a chorus of dark sounds, communicating that Norton disagrees with Obama – she doesn’t want to go to war against ‘radical Islam’ or ‘fundamentalist Muslims’ – no, Norton wants to go after “Islam.”

As the video plays, one waits for explanation of why all Muslims should be slaughtered, but Norton offers nothing. Is her desire to kill all Muslims based on the fact that many Muslims have brown skin? Or that some speak with accents? Or that some wear turbans? The fact that the quote was displayed without direct explanation leaves the door open to assume that Norton is a racist.

However, Norton proudly insinuates that she has not “forgotten” the tragic attacks of 911, potentially meaning that all Muslims should be slaughtered for the sake of preventing another 911? Now this is pure stupidity and a complete departure from the President W. Bush strategy of winning the war.

While I am against the Patriot Act, I remain a strong supporter of Bush because he did a terrific job of handling the War On Terror, primarily because his strategy was based on engaging all Muslims, not killing them. In examining the record, Bush gave record amounts of aid to Muslim countries, lifted many sanctions, and opened free trade, with the Middle East Free Trade Agreement and South Asian Free Trade Agreements as prime examples.

The result? Of the 57 Muslim countries in the world, around 53 of them, as of 2008, had given us intelligence against Al-Qaeda and/or arrested suspected terrorists. Even Omar Gadaffi of Libya turned over the Pan Am hijackers and offered us intelligence against Al-Qaeda, after Bush opened economic relations and offered aid.

However, the beauty of Bush’s policy was that it not just foiled Al-Qaeda, rather, it made the Muslim World better. For example, in 2006, Bush opened free trade with Jordan, which caused outside investment in Jordan to increase by 500 percent leading to the creation of over 45,000 new jobs. In turn, the Millennium Challenge Corporation recognized Jordan as a country that is realizing great increases in civil liberties and literacy, all elements attributed to the new growth of jobs and economic development.

After all, terrorists and dictators feed on poverty – a lack of outside development and capital forces people to sell themselves to the agencies with the most wealth. Yet, new jobs and purchasing power allow middle classes of the Muslim World to grow, empowering them to create environments of greater liberty, reducing the growth of terrorist recruitment.

And best of all, the polling group, Terror Free Tomorrow, boasts many polls confirming America’s rise in popularity throughout the Muslim Word under President Bush, directly correlated against Osama Bin Laden’s drop in popularity.

Winning the War On Terror really is not as hard as many think – free trade and the lifting of sanctions, under Bush, have proven to work – however, the only difficult part of this solution is electing politicians with the foresight and conviction to actually carry out such policy that, on paper, seems too soft on terrorism. Remember, it was Bush who traveled America proclaiming Islam to be a “religion of peace,” not a religion we should be at war with.

And thus, we are left with Jane Norton, a Republican candidate who dismisses all the wisdom above on the grounds that she hasn’t “forgotten.” I have news for Norton – President Obama hasn’t “forgotten” either. In keeping Guantanamo open, increasing drone attacks in Muslim countries and not reducing troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, all coupled with his tough talk of potentially invading Pakistan, one would conclude that Obama’s hawkishness could make Dick Cheney blush.

But more importantly, as a lifelong Republican, who was born and raised in Colorado, and as a practicing Muslim, I founded the groups Muslims For America and Muslims For Bush, with the hope of getting more Muslims in America involved, and potentially, registered into the Republican fabric. And nothing undoes this hard work more than politicians who seek division over wisdom. It is one of the reasons why I remain proud of my endorsement of Ken Buck over Norton, because Buck has a record of reaching out to Muslims in Weld County and getting to know them, demonstrating the kind of politician who will strengthen the GOP – someone with wisdom who builds bridges, not barriers.

Overall, I would say my mother surmises it best – in watching Norton’s new commercial, my mother said, “Well, there’s 57 Muslims countries. I guess Jane should just pick one and get started.”

Jane, good luck.

Muhammad Ali Hasan is a former Republican candidate for Colorado State Treasurer. An award winning film director and screenwriter, Hasan is currently developing a biopic about Benazir Bhutto.

Thank you to the Colorado Statesman for giving me this opportunity – they are a class act newspaper! Of note, the Statesman originally contacted me based on my postings here at Colorado Pols – thus, a thank you to CPols for allowing the arena to express oneself.

And lastly, what’s a good diary without a poll?

Original Link & Footnote –

http://coloradostatesman.com/c…

The Colorado Statesman, June 29, 2010

Which Muslim Country Should Jane Norton Attack First?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

99 thoughts on “ALI HASAN: Is Jane Norton Senseless or Racist?”

      1. …I have not heard Ken Buck bash gay people and considering the way he handled the Angie Zapata case (may she rest in peaceful sleep), it seems to me that Ken has a much better attitude towards this issue than Jane Norton

        I wish every candidate favored gay rights, but again, as I’ve said before, I’ll have to vote on character

  2. That you could reasonably house Kuwait in the top 5 floors of an office building..

    Level 1: Kuwaiti Department of Tourism

    Level 2: Kuwaiti Petroleum Ministry

    Level 3: Kuwaiti Finance Ministry

    Level 4: Kuwaiti Royalty

    Level 5: Allah Bar and Grille

      1. but anyone who has any issue at all with the statement that we are not at war with Islam has no business in the US Senate.

        If she really believes we need to wage war with Islam she is an idiot.  If she is just saying we should be at war with Islam to garner support then she is scum – take your pick.

  5. When Jane Norton is their annoined candidate for the U.S. Senate and a thoughtful intelligent direct speaking individual like Ali isn’t even on the ballot.

    Ali – very very well said. And it’s good to see some fighting to push the bigots out of the GOP.

    1. I do fear where my Party is heading

      We were supposed to unite under a message of stopping bailouts and repealing Obamacare… but as we head into November 2010, many seem more concerned about replicating the Arizona law in other States, more so than repealing Obamacare and ending bailouts

      The Republican Party will see its thorough extinction if xenophobic issues are prioritized over fiscal ones – but if the xenophobics actually succeed (and I guess they could), then it will signal the death of America, itself

  6. I’m not sure if Norton is either racist or senseless. I’m sure that’s how she views the Republican electorate and to some extent the electorate at large. She could be racist and thus sees this as a way to pull out a win because she thinks others share her beliefs. Or she could cynically think this is what Republican voters want to hear without believing it herself (or only half believing it), much as George Wallace did after losing his first governor’s race to a segregationist.  

    I, of course, disagree with you about Bush’s effectiveness against Al-Qaeda and terrorism. I think on the whole he blundered even if he got some things right and I’m not sure that free trade with Jordan is an effective measure against anti-American sentiment or against dictatorship. It may be a good thing in of itself, but I question if it actually does anything in the so called “War on Terror”.

    Is Jane Norton right or wrong about the Republican electorate. I hope she’s wrong, but my experience of the Republican party is that that average member would like nothing better than at least the rhetoric of “War Against Islam” and sending American Muslims “Back Where They Came From”. I think she’s trying to out tea party Ken Buck.

    1. I’ve talked to Jane Norton many times and she’s always nice to me – in turn, I also find it hard to imagine that she is racist

      With that said – words matter – grammar matters – to use the Obama quote without the wording “radical” and/or “fundamentalist” immediately opens itself up to an issue of potential racism – and yes, we have to hold our politicians accountable – notice that Norton still has not ‘clarified’ her statement, despite this article

      I politely disagree on the points of Bush – since when did sanctions actually stop terrorism and hurt dictators? For too long, administrations have relied on sanctions to end all problems – opening free trade and lifting sanctions has done more to curb terrorism than sanctions ever have – if you don’t believe me, then please defend sanctions as a tool to stop terrorism

      I would, personally, refer you to the Peterson Institute on International Economics who have a plethora of articles online that confirm that sanctions are not only useless, but in some cases, make matters much worse

      Bush understood that – many others do not – that’s why Bush’s handling was excellent, overall

      1. “I’m not sure that free trade with Jordan is an effective measure against anti-American sentiment or against dictatorship. It [free trade] may be a good thing in of itself, but I question if it actually does anything in the so called “War on Terror”.”

        Second when did sanctions work?  We’ll let’s do a google search.  How about that, Serbia in 1995.  http://www.effectivesanctions…. As the site I just cited notes sanctions against Iran are likely to be ineffective, an opinion I agree with. Sanctions like trade are not wholly good or bad, but good or bad on a case by case basis.

        Free trade with Jordan may or may not be a good in of itself, I do not know enough about the subject to form even a half-cocked opinion. Free trade, that is trade without tariffs or taxes, is of great benefit to those involved in trade, but that does not mean that it will bring about political freedom or an end to terrorism. There are no lack of examples of terrorists who came from middle class to wealthy backgrounds. Furthermore if the profits of the trade go to the groups within a country that seek to oppose the interests of the United States we have decided to give up tax revenue to fund our adversaries. How is that a good idea?

        1. Of course incedents where sanctions worked can be found, but I would argue that they do not work against Muslim countries at all

          From the Peterson Institute on International Economics –

          http://www.petersoninstitute.o…

          You will find that most sanctions placed upon Muslim countries had minimal, if not, zero success

          Again, we go nowhere by being isolationists who sanction – sending economic aid and opening free trade makes for great gains

          Ultimately, it comes down to this question – do we defeat terrorism by isolating Muslim countries and pressuring them with economic damage, or do we do better when we engage?

          Based on our advances with Libya, in comparison to our stagnation with Syria and Iran, I would say engaging makes for a much better strategy

          Secondly, I would ask, how else do we increase literacy and civil liberties in the Muslim World? If free trade can improve Jordan, then I think it can improve any Muslim country

  7. I am a supporter of Norton, but I don’t think it was the “best” video.  Though, what political video is ever good?  however, just because the video was somewhat unclear does not mean that she is a racist.  I think many have been making assumptions far beyond their area of proof.

    On a side not, Ali, great job explaining your thoughts on the War on Terror.  Contrary to popular media footage, there HAS been a lot of good coming out of Iraq; schools, hospitals, malls, tv shows, all being redone, rebuilt, and refunded in much better condition than what was under Saddam.  Though President Obama has done a pretty fair job with taking control of what Bush left behind, I would like to see him admit to us being more victorious now that he has seen the evidence for himself.

  8. I don’t think she’s a racist, but I think she’s probably clueless as to what the electorate wants.  I think the rest of her campaign staff is probably wondering as well.  

    If you look at her campaign so far, it seems like she is trying to capture the anger that is coming from voters everywhere, but she doesn’t stand for anything other than “I’m not Mike” or “I’m not a politician/insider like (whoever she’s running against)”  So she starts this commercial to show that she stands for something.  

    I really think this commercial is out of touch with what the voters are looking for.  When the economy is taking a dip, people losing jobs, and are concerned about their financial future, she throws this commercial out?  I really think there is a disconnect between her and reality.  

    1. Sure, Bush/Cheney would think, Wow! We could knock off Bangladesh in an afternoon, but then we’d bankrupt ourselves after deposing the [fill-in-the-blank] leader and installing Democracy.  

      Or as The Beej defines it: “Victory”

  10. …what this guy thinks?  Ali Hasan doesn’t realize how he is being played, as the Muslim dilettante who raises the “race” card at every opportunity.  Grow up, accomplish something in your own right, and try being just a “Republican” and “American” for a change instead of always making everything a “Muslim” issue.

          1. …btw the WPPoet…

            Check out this link – it’s a list of all the awards my last film won, as well as all the film festivals it played at – I feel pretty darn good about my accomplishments 🙂

            http://rabiamovie.com/latestNe…

            The film should be fingers crossed available for purchase on Amazon later this year – I’m very excited about our next project involving Benazir Bhutto – that is going to be a terrific film

                1. We still have some hurdles to clear, mostly financing, but I feel good

                  With that said –

                  1. Yes – if all goes well, it will be feature length

                  2. Not likely shot in Pakistan – we are looking heavily at New Mexico

                  The screenplay that I wrote to the movie won three major awards last year, so that helped propel things – fingers crossed, but I feel very good about the project and have had to throw myself back into fast since the Convention ended…

                    1. down there. It’s been a huge boon to their economy from what I hear.  

                    2. 1. Outside of Los Angeles, they have one of the best workforces in the country

                      2. Again, outside of LA, they have the best facilities in the country

                      3. They give you 1/4 of your budget

                      I’m planning on spending A LOT of time in New Mexico

                    4. I’m sure it won’t be too hard transforming the plaza in Santa Fe into Rawalpindi, let alone Islamabad.

                      Are you sure you wouldn’t rather film in British Columbia?

                    7. British Columbia has the Osoyoos Desert.

                      But, then again, places in Pakistan integral to the narrative — like Rawalpindi and Islamabad — aren’t exactly desert regions, either, given their “humid subtropical climates.”

                      But, hey, I’m not against filming in New Mexico. Maybe Bill Richardson can make a cameo as a goat herder or something.

                    8. I had no idea they had a desert. Then again I suck at geography so why am I surprised that I don’t know this. This is what I get for being a smartass.  

                    10. My understanding of British Columbia is that, in order to get their incentives, the film has to have an ‘approved’ Canadian producer – I’m not against that, but I think New Mexico’s work force, incentives, and facilities make for a much better place to shoot than BC and the qualifications to receive incentives are much less difficult to meet

                      Also – of all of the places in North America, the place that looks most like Pakistan is New Mexico

                      I have a LOVE affair happening with New Mexico – it’s a terrific State that loves their filmmaking and is looking to get even better – if everything goes well, I’ll be looking to headquarter my production company there

          2. It works really great in airports, btw….

              Ali, you’re beginning to grow on me.  Now, if only you’d admit that Douglas Bruce is Satan’s spawn, we’d have a real detente.;-)  

            1. Thank you, V!

              Please give Doug Bruce this credit at least –

              I’m sure he was pressured by some to drop his endorsement of me for State Treasurer, with some of that pressure being focused on my being Muslim – however, he stayed true to his word and continued to proudly endorse me – I think that speaks well of Bruce, especially within this discussion of the GOP and religious tolerance

        3. from what Poet said and from this whole Norton video.  The video is a reminder that the war on terrorism (not islam) is still going on.  If you’re not an extremely far right thinking republican, you know that terrorists take certain parts of the Quran out of context to suit their beliefs as well.  I have met with Jane Norton many times as well and I don’t think she is either senseless or a racist.  

          I don’t think this video is completely relevant to what voters want to hear right now, but that doesn’t mean it is senseless or racist.  

            1. CoSkier – I’ve already said above that I would find it hard to believe that Norton is racist – nonetheless, the manner in which this ad was done leaves the door open for racism to be a factor

              You can be upset with me, but in the end, Jane Norton has put both of us in a bad position – you, as her supporter, are in the bad position of having to defend a catastrophic mistake from her campaign and me, as a Republican, is now in a position to further defend against accusations of racism against our Party

              And for what it is worth, Norton isn’t recanting the web-video one bit – I think that says something

              1. from huffington post.  sorry it’s a little late, i just noticed.  regardless, i think it says something that she was willing to post your editorial on her facebook page.  and look how edited it is compared to this one! wow!

                1. If it’s on facebook, it must be worth a shit.

                  Especially if it was posted by a dumber-than-shit politician who is just trying to get out ahead of criticism for something stupid she has said or done.

                  I mean, if it’s on Facebook, it’s gospel.

            2. The video may be poorly made, but this is no reason to make false accusations that Jane Norton is a racist to better prove your agenda against her.  There is no factual evidence to support this even outside of the the video.  

    3. So you’re saying he’s not a Republican or American?  

      Nobody is saying Ali’s opinion is better or worse than anyone else’s on here.  But, as a tax paying American citizen, he has the right to express his opinions.  And he did.  And people are commenting because apparently, there are some folks that care about what he thinks.

      I’ve never questioned whether Ali is an American or a Republican.  He has opinions and is free to express them.  

      While people here might disagree with Ali’s politics, many respect him for his willingness to come on here to discuss the issues.  He might not have the same pull as Mike Rosen or someone else on talk radio, but he has the respect of many on this site.  

      2. While Ali and I almost NEVER agree (especially on O&G issues), I admire his openness and the kindness and respect he shows others. Ali is never, as far as I can tell, insulting (can’t say the same about me) and has a sense of humor.

        Oh, and the fact that he IS a practicing Muslim certainly qualifies him to respond to Nortons’ (Penrys’) stupid video .

         

    4. In your world it is okay to be Republican, American, and a Christian, but a Muslim needs to set aside their religion to “fit in.”  My money says you like the subliminal message in the Norton ad.

  11. it is a good editorial though I disagree with the admiration for Bush’s policy. Though most Islamic countries, as you say, have shared intelligence, I have to believe that the torture and Abu Grahib will haunt us for decades as well as the imprudent, impractical, costly and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

    1. Bush and America saw HUGE upticks in popularity after our responses to the tsunami in Indonesia (which mostly killed Muslims, I believe) and our similar, quick response to the terrible earthquake in Pakistan a few years ago

      Good deeds are highly rewarded in the Muslim World and not forgotten

      1. I didn’t say you hid it; I just didn’t know for sure whether your endorsement predated what you wrote above.  Now that you confirm that your endorsement came first, I know.  As I said, the fact that you already opposed Norton before her ludicrous political advertisement sort of undermines your asserted outrage at her ad.  It suggests (but does not conclusively estabish) that your piece is politically motivated rather than from the heart.  

  13. President Bush made mistakes, but he always differentiated between the billion or so decent Muslims in the world and the handful of psychotic killers who betrayed their religion and basic decency in quest of their own power and money.

    We do not make war on Islam, any more than we made war on Christians by executing Timothy McVeigh.  

      1. In the real crusades, the Franks not only massacred innocent women and children who were Muslim, they massacred Jews en masse, both in Europe — I guess as a tune-up — and in Jerusalem, where the Jews and Muslims had lived together peaceably.

          By and large, Islam honored “people of the book”, including Jews and Christians, as long as they paid their taxes.  Sometimes, non-Muslims paid an extra tax, but it wasn’t oppressive. Richard the Lion Hearted even massacred Muslim prisoners at Acre.

          Ironically, Saladin actually lived by the code of Chivalry that the Crusaders defiled.

        Only the American ignorance of history justifies the popular use of the term “Crusade” as a good thing.

        1. Yes – non-Muslims are sometimes documented as paying an additional tax, when under the control of Muslim rule (historically) but I believe this was because, often times, Muslims under those rules were forced to serve in the Armed Forces of that country/empire, whereas Non-Muslims were not

          Often, if the Non-Muslim joined the ‘said’ Armed Forces, then the tax was not charged – otherwise, it was considered a ‘tax’ for the sake of protection without serving

  14. I have disagreed with your positions on many issues.

    But dammit, I have a great deal of sympathy, not to mention respect, for anyone who is being fucked by the very people he has supported for his entire adult life.

    It wasn’t too many years ago that my grandfather and father faced discrimination for simply being Italian.

    I’d write that religion has no place in politics.  But that’s not true.  There are people who think it’s important, although I am not one of them.  As long as there are people who think it’s important, right or wrong, it’s going to affect how they vote.

    There are assholes who have taken over your party who think that it’s OK to demonize one religion for political gain–to pander to the people who are most intolerant.  That’s wrong on so many levels.

    The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, anticipated such bullshit.

    One only needs to look at Article VI, section 3 of our beloved Constitution to understand why Jane Norton and her handlers are so wrong.

    …no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    Pardon my French, but fuck anybody who doesn’t get that.

      1. I’ve had a lot of heart break over the issue, especially with the Republican Party

        I do genuinely believe though, that America is a wonderful country and that open-mindedness and love will triumph over xenophobia – it normally has – that’s what makes our investment in political activism, here in America, worthwhile

          1. Fear of “others” is baked in to our genes. But I also think that over time we reduce this – we expand who “we” are which reduces who “others” are and we do better to think with our head.

            1. Tea partiers didn’t create it, they just take advantage of the fear factor and the xenophobia that already exists in many people.  

                1. …I am genuinely concerned that anti-immigrant and anti-gay initiatives are starting to become more important to the Republican Party than fiscal-conservatism – and I don’t know if this is going to go away within the next 15 years

                  1. That’s why I continue to bring it up.

                    We can disagree on issues, but there’s too much shallow disagreement going on lately that involves nothing more than skin color, country of origin, or religion.

                    That’s not America.  At least not MY America.

  16. After reading this, you’ve earned my respect.

    Whatever policy disagreements I may have with you, your editorial shows a respectable maturity that will serve you well should more opportunities for elected office present themselves.

    If the powers that be within your party had the sense, they should put you in a position of outreach coordination in corners of society that they’ve neglected.

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

106 readers online now

Newsletter

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