I'd like to hear others' opinions about Jane Norton as a potential Republican Candidate for Michael Bennet's Senatorial seat.  Formerly she was Lieutenant Governor under Bill Owens.  The link below is to a discussion forum on an article that was recently written about Tom Tancredo and Jane disagreeing on immigration policies.  The article defends her stance on what Tancredo says Jane is for, which is somthing of a hybrid on Amnesty.  Her PR guy says she's not for Amnesty, but Tancredo points out that she uses terminology that reflects the "code word" for it, and that is something of a "pathway to citizenship".  Tancredo is a bulldog on immigration and I agree with this.  Referendum C is also brought up as something attached to Jane (not a positive).  I for one, am really sick and tired of the Washington Repbulican machine deciding who plays their game. Jane knows all the right words to say in order to get the less-informed Republican's to vote for her. But she declined to appear and answer tough questions at the Nov. 13, 2009 Candidate Search held up in Loveland, CO. She will appear in the Douglas County Candidate Search 2010 (March 6, 2010), which is good.  But I'd like her to answer all the questions on the Icaucus website and also talk to others about what you have heard about her.  I'm not going to call her a RHINO yet, but I'm close.




Views: 47

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There seem to be some real concerns about Norton's position on Ref. C and TABOR. It's difficult to tell how much of those concerns are speculative and how much is based on her actions/words - since she appears to "know all the right words", as you mentioned. She is linked (very thinly and more by indirect associations) to the poll that came out claiming GOP members supported repealing TABOR. What concerns me most about Norton is that as Lt. Governor, she did not take a strong, public position against Ref. C. Some excuse that under the guise of since the Governor supported it, "her position would not allow her to come out against it"; it's my opinion that her position obligated her to do exactly that if she was truly against it. The last thing we need is more politicians who are unwilling to stand on principle and conviction for the sake of not making waves.

Her campaign financial report is sort of a who's who of the GOP elite with some ties to people like John McCain and Olympia Snowe - but again, they are indirect.

Her current "positions on the issues" page reads well, while historically her actions neither support or blatantly contradict the words. She states, "I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants already in our country." But, as you point out, she could easily make that statement but support a hybrid agenda of some kind.

She is very tough to get a solid read on - which is legitimate cause for concern since we don't know if that's lack of opportunity to be in a position to establish and make her positions obvious, OR if it's intentionally vague (like way too many of our politicians today!) to avoid being pinned to one position.

A polite but very straight-forward Q&A session on March 6th would be a very helpful resource, I think. I'm willing to remain open-minded until then. She does have Bennet by a good lead.
Personally I can only get a feel for what Jane is about and that is politics. She knows that she has to talk some talk to rally conservatives and Tea Party votes however she is little on substance and stance. My first question would be, has she completed her I-caucus questionaire and been reviewed? That would have to be the number one contrast to look for. Topics on Tabor are state related and not at issue in the Senate race however it does provide a backdrop to review in her past opinions. When it comes to Social issues like immigration that is not our stick so leave it for others to discuss. There are so much bigger items that we must first survive that I place these social issues under the rug of the table.
I am not a big fan due to her previous votes (Ref C, etc.) and her budgets. She has now decided to petition on to the ballot instead of going through the primary.

See her letter below:

Dear Friends,

Times have changed. Every election is different, and this one is certainly different. We’re living in unique, historical times. Business as usual will not do as a way to conduct this campaign. Too much is at stake. We have never before experienced an out-of-control government and the erosion of our freedoms like we are now. Our freedom is under attack, and that is why I need to take the fight as soon as possible to the Democrats, Michael Bennet and Barack Obama to take back Colorado’s senate seat for the people of Colorado and help take back our government for the American people.

Today marks an exciting point on the road to victory in November. My campaign filed papers this morning with the Secretary of State to begin gathering signatures as part of a grassroots petition drive to place my name on the primary ballot and give us the best possible shot at unseating Governor Ritter’s appointed Senator.

This is not a decision I have made lightly. I have participated in our precinct and convention process my whole life, and I remain respectful of these institutions. I admire the enthusiasm of the many of you who have devoted your efforts to promoting participation, including the 9,622 grassroots Republicans who honored me with their support in the caucus straw poll.

We know there is almost certainly going to be a 3-way primary in August. One candidate is already petitioning on, and another has benefited from nearly a million dollars in special interest money flooding Colorado's airwaves in advance of the precinct caucuses and the assembly.

This election has always been about focusing on the issues and unseating Michael Bennet. After much careful deliberation, I have decided we cannot afford to give the appointed Senator a two-month head start.

So I will begin campaigning full-time for the primary today. I am blessed with a strong grassroots campaign organization in all 64 Colorado counties, and we will use that network to collect petition signatures, recruit new volunteers, expand our organization and continue to bring our message of limited government to all corners of the state.

The appointed Senator’s decision to gather petitions will give him an opportunity to campaign on a broad public stage over the next six weeks, and that is an advantage I will not cede to him. I will spend the next six weeks campaigning on the issues to the several hundred thousand Coloradans who will vote in the Republican primary, not to mention thousands of other unaffiliated and Democrat voters who are sick and tired of business as usual in Washington. And when I’m elected as your next senator, I’ll take on the special interests in Washington to get control of spending and restore the freedoms that have been eroded so badly over this last year of the Obama administration.

I was born and raised in Colorado where I learned from my dad, a Marine who fought in one of the toughest battles of World War II, that freedom is worth fighting for. I cannot wait another day while the special interests in Washington and mysterious donors attack me. We have to stand up and begin the fight now to take Colorado’s senate seat back from Washington insiders and lifelong public office holders.

I can't wait to mix it up with Harry Reid and the Good Ol’ Boys in Washington. And I can't wait to engage the primary contest. But the primary is a means to an end, and the ultimate end is to beat Michael Bennet and restore common sense and conservative values to the Senate. And that's exactly what we will do.

Republicans must not lose sight of our ultimate goal in this election: to return responsible fiscal leadership to Washington. A grassroots petition drive is the best route to accomplish that goal, and I sincerely hope for your continued support as we charge on to November 2nd.



P.S. Please go to our website, sign up and help us gather petitions. Together we can bring Colorado conservative values back to the Senate.

Help Send Jane
to the

Forward to your Friend
Follow our pages:

Click here to unsubscribe

PO Box 3008, Greenwood Village, CO 80155-3008
I agree with Fredrick Lindner, that Jane is not strong on substance. Having said that, at least in this case, she is not standing against good, which is good. As those who love America are aware, our Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It further declares that we not only have a right to destroy a government that does not protect those God given rights, but a duty. I will warn you - God does not like it when we are unfair to anyone. We need God on our side. Our American fore-fathers were right. Among other problems, when we embrace fascist ideas of strict regulation as to who is a person, we risk the consequences of fascism and strict, big government, while weakening the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, which protects our God given rights. If we can argue away Mexican's rights, who will stop the arguing away of our rights? In the United States of America, people are not illegal, nor should they be from a moral perspective. Historically, we have deviated from that in not recognizing different skin colors, slaves, women, babies, and people of other religions as people. Such behaviour has often resulted in violence and death. Our nation cannot afford the consequences of such evil - not recognizing all people as people with God given rights under the law. Consider Malachi 3:5 "And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against ... the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, .. and that turn the stranger [ie. the alien] from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts." May we embrace God and his people, and may we find His amnesty.

Reply to Discussion


© 2024   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service