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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%↑

30%

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
May 03, 2010 01:52 AM UTC

Financial Reform Whistles Past Norton?

  • 25 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As AP’s Erica Werner reports, it’s not the same game as health care:

Bye, bye, Mr. Nice Guy.

After pursuing bipartisan talks for months on health care and deflecting rather than challenging Republican critics, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are deploying a more aggressive approach in their attempt to push financial overhaul legislation through the Senate…

In the Capitol, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., explained it bluntly.

“Bottom line, on the health care bill, we allowed too many lies to get out there without rebuttal, because we thought they were so obviously untrue,” he said. “But we’ve learned our lesson.”

“And the minute these things come out of the mouths of some of our Republican colleagues, we rebut them. And we rebut them again and again. And fortunately, these lies are not taking hold.”

Republicans dispute that, saying Democrats are the ones mischaracterizing the legislation and that they want reform as much as anyone. “Everyone agrees that we must rein in Wall Street,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said this past week as she and others in the GOP sought to prolong talks on the bill rather than start voting on it…

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said health care reaffirmed two lessons: “not to let the day-to-day political disputes distract from the overall goal and not to assume that the opposition is willing to be constructive.”

There’s a palpable sense with the present financial reform legislation in the Senate that we won’t see the same thirteen months of agonizing over appearances of “bipartisanship” we saw with health care reform. The “permanent bailout fund” talking point, as with the message against health care largely formulated by GOP strategist Frank Luntz, appears to have fallen flat since its introduction a few weeks ago by Sen. Mitch McConnell, and last week Senate Republicans were unable to hold their filibuster threats together in the face of enduring public support for the bill.

Which could have the effect of pulling the obstructionist rug right out from under GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton. When we last heard from Norton on the issue late last month, as the Colorado Independent reported, she was still pretty much verbatim reciting Luntz’s memo:

U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton spoke for about a minute with ABC News Top Line Tuesday about Wall Street financial regulatory legislation, which Republicans had lined up to oppose. She said roughly four sentences on the legislation, depending on how you punctuate, yet she worked the word “bailout” into the first two sentences. The legislation has nothing to do with bailouts, not bank bailouts, not taxpayer bailouts, no kind of bailouts. Where did she get that word from? She got it, one way or another, from GOP strategist Frank Luntz, who dreamed it up in the fall.

In a memo to GOP leaders about any coming financial regulation, he wrote: “Frankly, the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.” [Pols emphasis] Did Norton read the memo?

[Norton:] “…I don’t think that the Democrat plan gets at the goal. And the first goal is to protect the American taxpayers from bailouts and subsidies. The second thing that our plan should do is to prevent another financial crisis But most importantly, we need an effective system to ensure, a bankruptcy system, so that large financial institutions that fail have a system rather than taxpayer bailouts.”

So what do you think, folks? Norton could change her tune to reflect the retreating position of real Republican Senators, but in a larger sense she’s already painted herself as obstructionist on the issue–which the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) was all too happy to link to a New York fundraiser held by hedge fund executives that netted Norton some $158,000.

If the health care debate marked the high water of Republican opposition to the agenda Democrats will run on this fall, and attempts to similarly oppose other legislative agenda items are quickly defeated with the spin trending against opponents (as seems to be the unfolding case here), then we could be looking at a change in the dynamic you’ll be able to measure in reduced Democratic losses in November. And that means trouble for Jane Norton, whose strategy of opposing everything, though easy to put into words, may not work out as well as Frank Luntz predicted.

It’s also interesting to note that Norton’s upstart opponent Ken Buck doesn’t really have the same baggage, and could probably make use of Norton’s opposition to financial reform (and big-bank fundraisers) as well as the Democrats can. After all, part of the “Tea Party’s” rage over ‘bailouts’ has to extend, assuming any consciousness at all, to the ones who got bailed out.

Tweet
Share

Comments

25 thoughts on “Financial Reform Whistles Past Norton?”

          1. By being confused.

            It’s kind of embarrassing that “being confused” is considered a winning argument in our current political climate, but that’s what you get when wanting to have a beer with your Presidential candidate is considered a good reason to vote for him.

            1. Read too quickly after a hockey game, was exhausted.

              I’m hoping you can help guide me and clear any confusion I ever have in the future.

              BTW, this…

              After pursuing bipartisan talks for months on health care and deflecting rather than challenging Republican critics, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are deploying a more aggressive approach in their attempt to push financial overhaul legislation through the Senate…

              …is the biggest bunch of bullshit I’ve read in years.  Nothing “bi-partisan” was momentarily considered, let alone pursued, and that’s why you guys are going to get your asses handed to you in November.

              1. Because of republican Ideas/amendments.

                Get it straight. the anger you feel starts with losing an election and then not understanding why The HCR Bill is a piece of shit.

                only perpetual denial and blame shifting by republicans keeps you hopeful LB.

              2. That’s why the HCR bill looks just like legislation proposed by Republicans in 1994, mandate and all.

                the biggest bunch of bullshit I’ve read in years

                I seem to recall a few internet and tabloid rumors that you’ve posted here that didn’t pass the smell test.

                1. Hows about Obamas affair? or his Kenyan Birth certificate?

                  then theirs the one about republican sanity and taking responsibility for their fuck-up’s?

                  Speaking of Republican Fuck-up’s Norton, Mcinnis, Buck, Wadhams, and Southers etc etc…  

                2. “Drill baby Drill”, Offshore Oil drilling is Totally safe or “stay the course” either.

                  yeah Denial is also a river in Africa.

      2. for the oil spill in the Gulf because all good little conservatives like LB take it as an article of faith that all corporations are great and altruistic enterprises who are the very epitome of responsible capitalism and if anything bad happens then it is the fault of the dirty hippies.  The current conspiracy making the rounds that radical environmentalists used sharks with lasers attached to their heads kind of like in the Austin Power movie to swim in and sink the rig to show the world how dangerous deep water drilling really is.

        Obama makes big bucks off of Wall Street and environmental terrorists are using sharks with lasers to sabotage the oil industry.  That is the kind of world LB lives in.  It is all made up and he fervently believes it all.

          3. Thanks for the chuckle buddy.

            Hopefully Norton, Obama, et. al. understand that business can’t always fix the problems they have created and it takes a strong partnership with our public sector to move things forward.  Regulation is important because business is incapable of regulating itself.  For every ten ethical companies there is one that is going to ruin it for everybody.  We need good government and good regulation is a necessary public sector function.

  3. I haven’t been following her as closely as many here, but from where I stand, she doesn’t have a single original fucking thought in her head. Not one. Ever. And I’ve read a lot of what she’s said.

    She’s a fucking moron. Every speech excerpt I’ve ever seen sounds like someone reading a script. If I were a supporter of hers, I’d find it embarrassing.

    The kindest thing I can say about her is that she’s a teleprompter with stems.

  4. Norton has already dug herself such a hole on a host of issues that exposing her as an idiot beholden to monied interests of all sorts at this stage is like throwing dirt on a coffin.  The only hope she ever had was clearing the field when the process started.  She was a mistake to run before she said a word and has not said a word since that has helped her.

    This is not the year to run when you are chosen by outsiders “NRSC and John McCain”, brag about your ability to raise funds (is connected in DC to lobbyists) and you have no credibility as a fiscal conservative “Ref C”.

    Those are fatal flaws and why her negatives are so high.

    1. the no credibility as a fiscal conservative because of “Ref C”.  Granted she won’t be invited to the girls tea party any time soon but good government is fiscally responsible and Ref C was good government.  Problems you solve now don’t cost you more later.

      1. The question is, is that the way people voting in the Republican primary are going to look at her vote on “Ref C”.  My guess is they will see it as an indication that she cannot be trusted to go back to DC and do some cutting which is what I sense they are looking for someone to do.

        Just my opinion.

  5. Note to GOP: Defending Wall Street gamblers who pissed away average citizens’ pensions and savings (and turned around to ask these same taxpayers to bail them out) is political suicide. Wow, for the self-declared party of pork-rind eating, southern and middle America, voting for financial reform seems like a no-brainer. Who the hell do you think lost all the actual money?

  6. H-Man: I love your obsession with Ref C.  If your man Buck thought it was such a bad idea, how come he didn’t say anything when it was being debated? How come he hired a campaign manager who was paid to help pass it? Candidates living in Ref C glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.  

    The fiscal difference is that Norton cut her budgets as Lt. Governor and Buck has expanded his as DA.  The proof is in the pudding.  

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

122 readers online now

Newsletter

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