July 30, 2010 06:49 PM UTC

About Charlie Black...

• 2 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Before it slips any further back in the rear-view mirror, last week’s NEWS4/Channel 12 debate between GOP Senate candidates Jane Norton and Ken Buck featured an interesting exchange over the role of outside, particularly Washington D.C. interests in their respective campaigns.

Now the “family ties” that Buck is referring to, as we’ve discussed many times, are the majority of Norton’s immediate family who either are presently or have worked in the past as lobbyists–especially Norton’s brother-in-law Charlie Black, without any exaggeration one of the most influential lobbyists in the history of the game.

So it’s fair for Buck to raise those kinds of questions–as if there was ever a doubt that Norton was a progeny of deeply-vested GOP interests in Washington, something the Republican base has known since the moment she entered this race. And the feeble comeback about Bill Ritter serving as Buck’s best man (or was it the other way around?) just doesn’t blunt the charge.

And for the record, Norton diffidently notes that she “didn’t pick” her brother-in-law, or sister (omitting lobbyist husband, ex-husband, and we suppose you have to omit the lobbyist kid). It doesn’t quite square, however, with what she told the Colorado Statesman’s Ernest Luning:

CS: What has been the role of Charlie Black in your campaign?

JN: He’s been my brother-in-law (laughs).

CS: Right, and in terms of the campaign, what is his involvement?

JN: Oh, I called him from time to time and asked for advice.

CS: Does he still provide ongoing advice to you?

JN: Sure.

Bottom line: maybe these two seemingly contradictory notions really aren’t? Maybe it’s true that Jane Norton has no choice whatsoever when it comes time to call Charlie Black for advice.

Of course, that’s more or less exactly what Ken Buck is saying.