Interview: Jane Norton says Ken Buck is Washington insider, not fiscally conservative
Taking the gloves off, former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton said in an 85-minute interview in her Centennial office today that Ken Buck, her opponent for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, is the real Washington insider and that she’s the fiscal conservative in the race.
“I am not the Washington insider in this race. That would be Ken Buck. Ken has a Washington insider 527 running over $1 million of ads on his behalf. And he received over a third of all his donations from employees of one company that relies on stimulus money and millions of dollars of special interests contracts,” Norton said.
(Her campaign provided me with a list of employees of Greeley-based Hensel Phelps Construction Co. who have contributed $141,800 to Buck’s Senate campaign.)
In reply to the Buck campaign’s charges that Norton is a Washington insider because she is backed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and is related to a Washington lobbyist, Norton said, “Ken Buck was Governor Bill Ritter’s best man. If we’re going to play the guilt by association game, that’s an interesting connection.”
Like Buck, Norton says she would not vote for a bill that would help Colorado if it included a tax increase.
Appointed Democrat Senator Michael Bennet “is totally out of touch with Colorado values. . . He’s a rubber stamp for anything the Obama administration wants.”
As executive director of the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment between 1999 and 2002, Norton said, “My general fund request was down 28% when I left office. We eliminated programs that were not authorized by the state statute or in the state constitution.”
Norton also noted that when she ran for lieutenant governor, she took an unpaid leave of absence from her state job. Ken Buck continues to serve as the district attorney of Weld county even though he’s often absent so that he can attend campaign events, she said.
She also clarified her role at the Englewood-based Medical Group Management Association, where she was in charge of monitoring changes in states’ laws and regulations and informing managers of some 7,000 medical group practices about how they could comply with new state laws. She wasn’t in charge of the MGMA’s lobbyist in Washington and she never managed lobbyists or served as a lobbyist, she said.
“I have never been a lobbyist,” she said.
To see the 27 questions and answers, please click on the hed of this story. If you’re viewing this story at Rocky Mountain Right or Peoples Press Collective, go to www.businessword.com.
1. What do you like about the immigration reform bill being pushed by President Obama? What don’t you like?
The president is playing politics with immigration, trying to rally his base around his failed policies in the economy and health care. I don’t like the politicization. I would not be for amnesty. If it doesn’t secure the borders, I would not like it.
We need a temporary guest worker program with state biometrics identification programs that can verify that they’re here legally and temporarily.
2. Do you support Arizona’s new immigration enforcement bill? Should Congress pass that kind of bill?
I think it’s emblematic and a reaction of the people of Arizona to the government’s failure to secure the borders. To keep America safe, we have to secure our borders. The courts will decide whether the law is constitutional. It’s another example of how the federal government is not keeping its promise to keep us safe by securing the borders.
3. Both you and Ken Buck have said that you believe that immigration reforms should allow foreign workers to come into the country temporarily and do seasonal work for farmers and others. Exactly how would that work? Would it be enforceable?
We could enforce it by cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrant workers. Use state issued biometric I.D.s. The design and administration of a temporary work visa program should be dictated on the needs of our economy. Do we need farm workers, hospitality workers, technical workers?
4. Ken Buck says he never would vote for a bill that included a tax increase even if it was a bill that would help Colorado. Would you?
No. I wouldn’t. Our economy is in bad shape, and you don’t improve it by increasing taxes. I was the first candidate in this race who signed pledges to not raise taxes. I’ve walked the walk as a fiscal conservative. Ken’s allowed his budget in the DA’s office to grow. I had two tax supported budgets when I was in office that were lower when I left office than when I started.
I support a three-year time out on the payroll tax, a reduction of the corporate tax, elimination of the estate tax and a fairer and flatter tax code.
She’s opposed to a value added tax. “We’re not under taxed, we’re over spent.”
5. Ken Buck has said he doesn’t totally believe in America’s traditional separation of church and state? Do you?
I do support our country’s founders’ view of separation of church and state which is that the government never should establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of our religious liberties. Some state and federal government officials have misinterpreted that as meaning there can be a license to get rid of public expression of religious views—banning the display of nativities, banning meetings of religious clubs in public schools.
6. How would your religious beliefs affect your votes in the Senate? How would they not affect them?
My faith is really important to me. It’s shaped my values. If elected, I would represent all of the people of Colorado and do what’s best for the state, not my denomination.
7. There is some confusion about your careers in government. When you were regional director of HHS, did you establish budgets, or was that done by OMB and HHS?
I was regional director of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) from April 1988 to January 1993. Region 8 included the 6 states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. My office was in Denver. I had a small administrative budget that was requested by the secretary of HHS. My budget did not include the budgets of the various HHS programs like Medicare or Medicaid. The program initiatives were set by the secretary who requested funding from Congress. I was the secretary’s representative in the region. My budget was the administrative budget.
Under former Governor Bill Owens, Norton was executive director of the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) from 1999 to 2002. Her bio says she managed a staff of 1,100 with a budget of over $280 million.
“Working with the governor’s office, the executive director makes a general fund request to the legislature. I spent it within the intent of the legislature.” She had quite a b it of influence because she made budget recommendations.
“My general fund request was down 28% when I left office. We eliminated programs that were not authorized by the state statute or in the state constitution.”
When she ran for lieutenant governor, she took a leave of absence without pay.
Buck hasn’t taken a leave of absence as the district attorney of Weld County and is often out of the office campaigning, Norton notes.
8. As lieutenant governor, did you have any power over any kind of spending by the state of Colorado? If so, how did you use that power?
I had responsibility for the general fund appropriations, which decreased during my tenure. I could have asked and made the case for more money but didn’t.
In 2004, there was a bill that authorized the state to collect money to send WW II VETS of limited means to the dedication ceremonies for the National World War II memorial opening in Washington, DC. Instead of asking for tax dollars, I went out and raised private dollars. I believe we sent 24 veterans back.
9. Were you ever a Washington lobbyist? Did you ever talk to members of Congress or people in the White House or government agencies about bills, regulations and policies?
I have never been a lobbyist. I am not the Washington insider in this race. That would be Ken Buck. Ken has a Washington insider 527 running over $1 million of ads on his behalf. And he received over a third of all his donations from employees of one company that relies on stimulus money and millions of dollars of special interests contracts.
If you want to be worried about Washington special interests, we should worried about Ken Buck.
Ken Buck was Bill Ritter’s best man. If we’re going to play the guilt by association game, that’s an interesting connection.
10. As head of the Office of State Government Relations and the Office of Strategic Relationships at the Englewood-based Medical Group Management Assn. (MGMA), did you help hire and fire lobbyists?
I was director of state government relations from 1994 to 1999. There were two government relations offices, state and federal. My shop monitored health care reform legislation in the 50 states. We provided information to our members on how they could comply with regulatory and legislative changes. There was a federal lobbyist in DC who had a separate role and was a registered lobbyist.
11. Did you give instructions to those lobbyists?
Absolutely not.
It was through my experience at HHS, MGMA and as the executive director of health etc., that I learned about real health care reform, and it was not ObamaCare.
12. Sen. Michael Bennet voted for Obama’s stimulus bill. Would you?
Absolutely not. It hasn’t created jobs and we know it can’t because government can’t create jobs. The private sector does. And that’s why I’m running for the Senate. The Federal government is out of control.
13. Bennet voted and strongly advocated for ObamaCare. Why?
I think he is totally out of touch with Colorado values. Coloradans want substantive changes that will reduce the cost of health care.
He’s a rubber stamp for anything the Obama administration wants.
14. What are the chances that the health insurance bill will be totally repealed in the next 6 to 12 years?
I’ve called for repealing and replacing the bill, but to override a presidential veto, we will need more help in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, there are other things we can do to kill the bill before it goes into effect. Like stripping funding for 16,000 Internal Revenue Service agents needed to implement the bill.
We should focus on not funding the critical pieces of the legislation, legal challenges by states’ attorney generals. We need incremental changes like tax equity and tort reform that would bring the cost of health care down.
We’ve just added 32 million people to Medicaid’s roles. We don’t have physicians to serve those people. The state’s budget is overburdened with the Medicaid cost shift and we don’t have the providers. Under ObamaCare, it will take you five to six months to see a primary care physician.
15. What would be your top priority when it came to trying to “fix” the bill in the next session of Congress?
We know tort reform works, tax equity increases coverage, portability, purchasing across state lines and consumer directed health care. Choice and competition would bring the cost of health care down and increase quality.
16. You are for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Correct?
Yes, without raising taxes, and that’s the difference. I think it’s possible. There is incredible momentum because of the out of control spending by the Federal government.
17. What are the chances that such an amendment will be approved by Congress and the states and become part of the U.S. Constitution in the next six years?
I"m optimistic because there is so much displeasure because we’re mortgaging our children’s future. This kind of spending is not sustainable.
18. Senate Republicans appear to be near a deal on finance reform, or they were on Friday. What financial reforms do you support and oppose?
We need to reform our banking laws. Never again can we allow taxpayers put on the hook for bailouts. Protect taxpayers from bailouts, prevent a financial crisis from happening again. We need an effective bankruptcy system for large financial institutions that fail. Get rid of the too big to fail policy. They’re not doing anything to regulate the culprits who got us into this, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There are stringent regulations, but I don’t think they’re effective.
19. Are you concerned that the financial reform bill’s creation of a regulatory agency that could shut down financial companies, including manufacturers with financial operations, could be politicized and that the power could be abused?
They’re perpetuating a too big to fail mentality. Any time the government offers such guarantees, there is room for all sorts of abuses.
There is so much discussion about what would be the systemic risk and there is concern about politicizing the regulatory framework.
20. Energy is a big issue in Colorado. How should federal laws be changed to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign energy providers?
We’ve got massive government regulations that are driving jobs from the state. We need an all of above energy policy that supports the wind, oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal industries. It’s a matter of national security.
21. You are for eliminating the U.S. Dept. of Education. What are the chances that would be done during your six to 12 or more years in the U.S. Senate?
This question strikes at what is the proper scope and size of the Federal government. Eliminate the 5,000 bureaucratic positions in the department and block grant the money to the states and local entities. Massive spending doesn’t increase student performance. Look at the department’s budget and how it’s grown over the years and how it has not increased student performance. This is another example of spending at the federal level.
In 2008, there was one person at the Dept. of Transportation who made over $170,000, now there are almost 1,700 in the government, according to USA Today.
Average private sector job right now is $41,000. The average public sector job is $79,000, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
You take all of the unspent TARP and stimulus money, put it towards reducing deficit, cut discretionary spending by 20% and freeze it for three years. You repeal ObamaCare, which is a huge tax on Americans. You don’t pass cap and trade. Reduce the corporate tax rate. Eliminate the estate tax. Eliminate payroll tax for three years and allow small businesses to flourish.
22. What are people telling you about starting and growing businesses in Colorado?
Every day I have people tell me that they aren’t going to add people because of the uncertainty. I’ve had acquaintances who’ve closed businesses.
23. How do you think you would vote in the Senate differently than Ken Buck?
That’s simple. I have a record of fiscal conservatism. Ken doesn’t. Ken would vote to help the Washington special interests that backed him. With him you’ll get politics as usual and with me you’ll get a vote to end runaway spending.
24. Is Michael Bennet representing Colorado or the unions and his home town of Washington, DC?
Michael Bennet is representing unions and Barack Obama. He is a rubber stamp for Obama and the special interests that are trying to get him elected. His votes on unions are out of touch with Colorado. He’s not listening and he’s not representing us.
25. Public employee unions are almost bankrupting the Federal government and the governments of California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and other states. Do you agree that that’s a problem? What should Congress do about it?
It’s a huge problem. Congress needs to place people at the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) who understand the importance of industry, not just union lackies like Craig Becker.
Congress shouldn’t make it easier for unions to place a choke on employers and employees with card checks for union elections.
26. Big government gives special interests huge incentives to spend billions on lobbyists who, in effect, corrupt members of Congress and state legislatures with campaign contributions. How do you convince voters who love all of their government subsidies and tax exemptions that governments that are run by lobbyists and special interests hurt them more than help them live prosperous lives?
We have to eliminate earmarks if you really want to get at the corruption and special interests. I was the first one in this race to pledge not to support earmarks.
A true discussion about the power of incumbency is needed and whether we are at a time where we need term limits. Incumbency and spending have gotten so out of control that we need term limits at the federal level.
27. That would require a Constitutional amendment?
Yes.
LINKS:
Click the interviews tab below this story to see my interviews with Ken Buck and other candidates.
Federal pay continues rapid ascent. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries. By Dennis Cauchon, USA Today.
Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
Medical Group Management Association.
Great job, Don. Funny how the LSM has not come close to the coverage you’ve gotten of the two GOP Senate candidates. Of your 27 questions I’ll start with something I can’t stand, but which Buck has done too. Question #2. You don’t pass legislation and then pass the buck (no pun intended) to the courts. All three branches have an obligation to do their very best to only enact constitutional laws or get constitutional search warrants.
This is not some mere opinion of mine, but goes back to the framers.
#4. Great idea on the three-year payroll tax suspension.
#5. Jane is correct on the First Amendment freedom of religion-establishment clause too. She was backed up today on this by SCOTUS in cross case in Mojave National Monument case.
#7. Although Mark Hurlbert has recently become more responsive about issues related to his dual-mode of being DA and a state Senate candidat, this whole leave of absence idea is a point worth considering. Super-smart Dem. DA, Stan Garnett seems to have gotten off to quite the brisk campaign start and has an impressive conviction record. As we all know, some people are better at multi-tasking than others. I have not followed Ken’s DA career enough to know.
#14. Speaking of prinary care physician visits,and the fact that general election is still seven months away, I better go get a checkup myself!
#16. Balanced budget talk makes sense at state but not fed level. If she wants this populist bunk, she should sign up with Ali Hasan’s campaign. But prior 15 questions shows she’s too smart to be this stupid. Drop it. I have a better chance of being next Queen of England than this constitutional amendment being adopted.
#17. As usual, you’re ahead of me. See #16. Answer is disingenuous. BBA will not pass, nor should it.
(To be continued).
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/29/2010 at 12:45 AMContinued from prior post.
#20 - We needed a Johnonesque follow-up on this one about energy. A “policy that supports” various energy types, sounds like Dems picking winners and losers. We need less policy, not more. We need to let the markets work. Sounds pandering to Colorado greens.
#21. I be liking her answer here a lot. Readers should look at her detailed anti-big government response.
#22. Jane’s also right about small business problems in Colo. Dumb dems want loan programs. Dumb Dems need to go back to local community colleges and take Econ. 101. Uh, businesses lack demand. You don’t take out a loan you presumably will need to repay when the demand for your service or product is not there. Do they just not get this point? Do they know 1 and 1 is 2? Maybe not. That’s why they’re called dumb dems.
#23. I hope Jane is telling truth. Either that, or Josh Penry’s really gotten her talking points on message.
#24. Nice softball, Don. “No, I think Michael Bennet is a fiscal conservative who will throw unions under the bus, and who would be more conservative than Buck.”
#25. Good answer on unions.
#26 and 27. Great questions, great answers.
#28. Since we readers didn’t see this interview on TV, what were your impressions of her?
I still have not chosen a candidate, but I think we Rs are fortunate to have two very good ones. Sounds like Jane is moving on from Ref. C and I hope other Reps will give her redemption for same if they believe her.
She sounds very sharp, very sincere as a fiscon. But you were the one on the spot (so to speak). What do you think?
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/29/2010 at 01:05 AMThanks for the thoughtful reactions to Norton’s answers. You’ve added a lot to my story by telling us how a strong conservative views Norton, I think.
Both Norton and Buck are good interviews. They take pointed questions as opportunities to take firm stands, and they realize that if I don’t ask these questions, others will.
Norton gave me a lot of time and obviously has strong conservative opinions about all of the big issues. And she is smart enough to talk at a pace that allows me to take good notes on my Mac.

I like the new energy we’re seeing in both campaigns. I will be a strong supporter of whoever gets the GOP’s nomination for the Senate.
Posted by Donald Johnson on 04/29/2010 at 05:40 AMThanks Don. I’ll add #9 - the Bill Ritter connection. I definitely feel that one’s a problem for Buck and for Mark Hurlbert. Ritter provided a lot of help for Hurlbert on the Kobe Bryant case. Doesn’t look as if that help did much good. The big problem is simply we’ve seen a career DA as our governor, and it hasn’t been pretty.
Unlike Hurlbert, Buck has gotten out there on the issues. Equally important, Buck has spent time in the private sector. A friend of his made sure he just got that info up on his website. I don’t trust anyone who has spent his entire career in government to get it. I just don’t. By “it,” I mean the economy, and government being the problem. Those people will never wind up voting for the radical cuts that are needed in government.
Stan Garnett, the Dem Boulder DA running against John Suthers for AG, has spent the great majority of his career in very successful private practice. It comes through in every dealing I’ve had with him. He seems to treat the public as clients or customers.
The Norton-Buck race will surely get even more interesting as we get closer to the primary! Great piece. I wanted to learn more about her, and this really helped.
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/29/2010 at 10:34 AMThank you, Don for a good, fair interview! Norton is a very smart, conservative lady who will be a great Senator for Colorado. I agree with her Buck is the Washington insider. There is very little that is really conservative with Buck. He has adopted a populist talk from Glen Beck over the last few months. When one examines his record as US Attorney, DA, or candidate, it tells a different story. Buck has been in government at the US Attorney’s office. He then went to Hensel Phelps, a company that exists as a result of defense contracts. He went from that company to DA. Jane is right! Buck is the true insider!
I was campaign chair for El Paso from April into the fall for Buck. I heard Perry and Ken come up with a strategy to say Norton was a lobbyist. They also decided to try to tie her to McCain. They knew neither one was true, but to them it did not matter
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/29/2010 at 06:46 PMCheri - what would be the best way to go about examining Buck’s record as DA and a USA. Without specific case names it can be tough. I’m very familiar with the tax return case, and the transgender murder trial, but not anything else.
I would be interested in learning more, if you can point me in the right direction.
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/29/2010 at 07:17 PMBuck spent $300,000.00 defending his actions on the tax return case. He would have saved those funds for his county if he would have listened to Atty Gen Suthers, who told him not to grab the 5,000. Buck grew the DA office by 50%. You say you are familiar with the tax return case, then you know he has a state ethics charge for grabbing the tax returns. All the people who helped Buck win the DA race and were then employed in the DA office, have left and gone over to the Norton campaign.
Buck was number three in the US Attorney’s office, in charge of Criminal Investigations. He was told for two years to prosecute a pawn shop owner selling guns illegally. Multiple sting operations tied the gang crimes in and around Denver to the pawn shop. Another attorney was brought in who did prosecute the pawn shop owner. The prosecution had a very strong case because of the sting operations. Right before trial, the defense was given critical prosecution information, which severely compromised the case. The gun runner walked with a slap on the wrist. Buck was demoted to low man in Civil Investigations for a short time before he left the office. Buck was the one who gave the defense prosecution information, resulting in a federal ethics charge. Buck’s file is sealed in the Dept. of Justice. Obama has already endorsed Bennett. He will have Holder release the file if Buck is our nominee. Galansky is the name of the pawn shop owner, and he has made donations to Buck’s senate campaign.
The Democrats and press do not want these stories out until the general election. Bennett and the Democrats will then destroy Buck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/29/2010 at 08:42 PMIs it these legal things that caused you, as well, to switch to supporting Jane?
What else is out there about DA record? I think the tax return case was appalling and indefensible. Problem is that lay Republicans don’t get it that easily. Then, Ken is supported by a lot of libertarian types and by other people I agree with. Those people don’t have bad things to say about Jane, though, and think she would make a good candidate. Is he a serial civil rights abuser, or was that case an isolated incident?
Was the pawnbroker case written about in the media?
Feel free to email me off-blog at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
If somebody is going to examine Buck’s DA record, I think I’m the designated conservative-blogger driver on this one. Don’s already said that was for someone else to cover. I have no agenda at all. I just want to see the strongest general election candidate get the nomination.
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/29/2010 at 09:31 PMGuys:
This Jane Norton is not a DC insider stuff is total nonesense. Here is some info from Politico:
“The Feb. 5 memo from National Republican Senatorial Committee Executive Director Rob Jesmer provides an inside look at a party hoping to cash in on the momentum of the tea party movement — while strengthening its money connections to the Washington lobbying establishment so reviled by the conservative populists who have given the GOP new life.
[Complete memo, with contact info redacted, is after the jump]
Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010Jane 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 fill in the gaps of the players here is some backgroung.
Mitch McConnell – Minority Leader US Senate
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
Doyce Boesch – leading lobbyist for Strategic Health Care
Cesar Conda – Founder of Navigator Global, same lobbying firm that employs Phil Anderson, above
Julie Cram, Lobbyist
Smitty Davis, Lobbyist and Partner at DC law firm Akin Gump
Mimi Dawson, Lobbyist
Frank Donatelli, Lobbyist
Marty Gold, Lobbyist and Partner at DC law firm Covington and Burling
Marilyn Harris, Lobbyist for among others Marathon Oil
Susan Hirschmann,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, Lobbyist with McCain connections
Fern O’Brian, Lobbyist
Ed Rahal, Lobbyist
Mercy and Matt Schlapp, Matt – Lobbyist, wife Mercy TV host
Jade West – Lobbyist for National Association of Wholesaler-DistributorsCheri Ofner has been posting nonsense about Ken Buck charging him with being charged with state and federal ethics violations, etc, etc. I asked her to provide courts and docket numbers and now she claims the are all secret files. She has a couple, if not more, screws missing. The last fishing expedition was Ken Buck was not a fiscal conservative because his DA office budget went up. When the smoke cleared, what was the finding? Buck is a fiscal conservative. Now we got secret unobtainable files of imaginary incidents that other have waiting to pounce as soon as the republicans make the mistake of nominating Buck.
I think someone needs to lower their meds.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/30/2010 at 01:21 PMIn the 85 minute interview Jane Norton simply reiterated what Josh Penry had already stated in other news articles. Who came up with the 27 questions?
Both Penry and Norton use the same weak example of the “Best Man” wedding connection of Ken Buck and Bill Ritter. Do Penry and Norton know the difference between friendship and political back scratching? The “guilt by association” theory would mean that Republicans cannot have friends that are Democrats. My liberal Democrat friends do not influence my political beliefs. I would like to know how Penry and Norton see the Mary Matalin and James Carville relationship and if Mary Matalin makes James conservative or James makes Mary liberal!
The political back scratching is “I will support you politically if you will support me”. Looking at Norton’s connections and list of supporters, she is the consummate political insider. Norton and her political supporters want the public to believe they are conservative and they may have successfully high jacked the vote in the past but it is a new political age and voters are scrutinizing the candidates and looking for the whole truth.
For full disclosure I am supporting Ken Buck’s Senatorial campaign because his political resume’ doesn’t read like a who’s who in the Rino world and Career Politicians.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/30/2010 at 02:14 PMThe federal ethics charge in sealed in the Dept of Justice. It is easy to google the ethics charge for grabbing the tax returns. Try doing some research and find the truth. I have found it very common for Buck supporters to attack the messenger because you do not like the message. Everything I am saying is true and documented.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/30/2010 at 02:29 PMDon,I assume you know, Laura #10 is not me. You know that I know that you came up with those 27 questions. Anybody that reads Don’s interviews knows that those those are Don’s questions. It’s as good as DNA evidence.
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/30/2010 at 02:29 PMCheri. I have said. I know your are right on the tax returns case. Is there a paper that did a lot of coverage of Buck’s cases as DA? For example, I searched Summit Daily and VD for cases on Hurlbert since 2003 and Kobe Bryant. I have a lot of material from that. Ken is from a much bigger jurisdiction and may have gotten less coverage if he was only covered by the amateurs at 9news and DP.
Ethics stuff is often kept under seal until actual violations are found and go on record. There are private reprovals that stay private.
Just tell me about where I can get started. For example, I went through the “crime and courts” section of Summit Daily chronologically, as you will most often not have the head DA’s name, but a deputy. But boss is responsible. So all of the cases matter that come out of Weld. Provide a couple, please.
Posted by Laura Victoria on 04/30/2010 at 02:36 PMPlease introduce a bill to pay half of each congressperson and the President from each year’s annual surplus.
don’t talk of deficit reduction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/02/2010 at 10:08 AMCheri Ofner often throws out wild accusations but never, never offers substantiation for them.
Paragraph 2, above: “Ken has a Washington insider 527 running over $1 million of ads on his behalf.”
Does Norton not understand that a campaign must have NO involvement with a 527? Even trying to direct the spending of a 527 would violate the law.
#7 is a lie. While one part of the budget was down, others were up. The net effect is that Norton’s budget overall, was UP.
#23 is a joke: Norton says, “I have a record of fiscal conservatism.” Really? Does a conservative support and continue to defend the biggest tax increase in Colorado history?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/02/2010 at 01:35 PMOf course, I wrote the questions. I took 24 to the interview and added 3 followups.
Posted by Donald Johnson on 05/02/2010 at 05:45 PMI would have liked to have seen a question about why she helped write and push Ref. C - how does that align with a fiscally conservative, limited and constitutional government? Don, if possible, I would request you hold her accountable to that in a future interview.
And anyone that thinks Norton hasn’t received politcal committee money is completely out of touch. Check out her FEC reports on committee contributions: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2009_S0CO00294. Then take a look at the “Big Business” and out of state contributors behind her individual contributions: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_ind/2009_S0CO00294. These people think they can “tell” you what they want you to hear and you will be believe it. Don’t fall into that trap.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/03/2010 at 10:44 AMThe candidate that will win the nomination and election will have more than platitudes about fiscal conservative, republican principles. The questions are sorely lacking the seeking of a real workable plan to restore US business and ensure associated jobs for our citizens. Private sector revenue and jobs equal revenue for all. Restoring these will take care of half of our problems. The other half can be taken care of by oursourcing the depts of energy, EPA, education and a downsizing of treasure, commerce, interior and agriculture. Nuff said which candidate has the kaputz to do this??? Ask those questions!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/03/2010 at 10:56 AMNorton has addressed Ref. C several times at candidates’ forums. I know I’ve reported on at least of those appearances. I’ll see if I can find it.
Jim,
Are you saying government can create jobs? It can’t, and that is Norton’s position. She’s saying she backs lower taxes, less government and less regulation, which would give businesses the incentives and freedom to start and grow their workforces. It can’t do more than that. While governments are great at killing jobs, they’re not good at creating them.Posted by Donald Johnson on 05/03/2010 at 02:39 PMOn Jan. 4, 2010, Norton told a meeting of Jefferson County Republicans that I covered:
“She also defended her support of Referendum “C” and reasserted her support for TABOR. Referendum C, she said, was needed because the state was paying for the drought and forest fires in the face of reduced tax revenues because of the 2000 to 2002 recession. Governor Bill Owens, she pointed out, cut taxes 43 times and 30 of those cuts were permanent. Norton was lieutenant governor under Owens.
“Norton noted that TABOR gave voters the power to suspend spending limits as they did on Referendum “C”. The system worked as TABOR allows it to. “TABOR lets the people decide,” she said. Norton said she would not support any changes to TABOR now.
“Some kind of TABOR-like spending limits should be debated in Congress, Norton said. She supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”
Link is here: http://tiny.cc/7q4b9
Posted by Donald Johnson on 05/03/2010 at 02:44 PMThank you for the link Don. Although I would be interested to hear her response in a more intimate, in depth session. From what I have seen and heard, her response has been varied.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/03/2010 at 03:39 PM
