PPC Homepage

Who will win Ken Buck versus Jane Norton primary?

by | 8:59 am, March 17, 2010 | 17 Comments

The Rasmussen Reports polls and Tuesday's caucus preference polls make it pretty clear that the Republican U.S. Senate Aug. 10 primary contest will be between Ken Buck and Jane Norton. Who will win? It's too early to predict, but there are several ways to look at the contest. Rasmussen's polls have consistently shown Norton as the stronger candidate against 
Category: Uncategorized
Tags: >

Comments

  1.   Scott
      March 17th, 2010 @ 9:45 am

    I guess I have been on an island, what are all these “negative attacks”? Please explain as the only negative ads I have heard on the Western Slope were from a group that does not appear to be Bucks camp or any other GOP camp. Educate this West Slope conservative.

  2.   Chris Maj
      March 17th, 2010 @ 10:11 am

    Donald, the main attacks against Norton are based on her record of publicly campaigning for Ref C while she was in office as Lt Gov. Ref C was a popular vote, per TABOR, to increase revenue for the state at the expense of the taxpayer by way of letting the state keep more of what they stole from the taxpayer via taxes.

    As a popular figurehead for the yes votes — while hailing from a party that usually votes against big government taxes — Norton was perhaps one of the most influential figures during the Ref C debate, was she not?

    Please try not to distract from this legitimate question with unsubstantiated, undocumented smears on Taxpayers For Liberty — for which a simple link or two in your post would suffice as reference material to check up on your outlandish claims.

  3.   Stu D.
      March 17th, 2010 @ 11:26 am

    Chris, you are crazy if you don’t believe that Ken Buck is letting some shady 527′s do her dirty work. I think Donald summed up the situation quite well. Norton has not attacked any of her GOP opponents, which I commend her for. Meanwhile, Buck is allowing Taxpayers for Liberty to bash Norton on his behalf and doing a very poor job on his part to hide that fact. The attacks are completely baseless and they have no room in this race.

  4.   Donald Johnson
      March 17th, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

    Chris,
    Until Taxpayers for Liberty tells us who they are, where their money is coming from and that they no longer will distort Norton’s record, I will call them out for what I see as their dishonesty. Norton was a minor figure in the Ref. C campaign, which I followed very closely. Gov. Bill Owens and the Democrats led the charge on Ref. C along with the Denver Metro Chamber and other business groups that knew they would profit from its enactment. To hang “C” on Norton only shows how weak the attack on her is.

  5.   Donald Johnson
      March 17th, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

    The system is not taking my reply to Scott. Trying again.

    The conversation started at these links:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/colorado/election_2010_colorado_senate

    http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2010/03/time-to-denounce-taxpayers-for-liberty-sleazy-tactics-shadowy-group/

    http://bendegrow.com/2010/time-to-denounce-taxpayers-for-liberty-sleazy-tactics-shadowy-group/

    http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/3403/

  6.   Donald Johnson
      March 17th, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

    Scott, this web site won’t let me post the links to relevant threads. Try my blog at http://www.businessword.com. Scroll down to the story, “Will Ken Buck, Tea Partiers denounce ‘Taxpayers for Liberty’?

    http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/3403/

  7.   Mike
      March 17th, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

    What are the negative ads? Norton supported Ref C, it’s not a negative ad to remind people of her support for a tax increase.

  8.   Gregg M
      March 17th, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

    And the connection between Taxpayers for Liberty and Ken Buck is……. ??????

  9.   Donald Johnson
      March 17th, 2010 @ 7:48 pm

    Gregg,

    Taxpayers for Liberty mailed an appeal for funds that it wants to use on behalf of Ken Buck. I received the mailing. It makes what I consider untrue and over blown charges against Jane Norton. That Ken Buck won’t disown those charges, which he can do without violating the law, is making people who are worried about the corruption in Congress and lack of integrity in both the Democrat controlled Congress and in the White House wonder about Buck’s character. How can you be upset with Washington and condone dishonesty on the part of GOP candidates and their supporters?

  10.   Chris Maj
      March 17th, 2010 @ 10:37 pm

    I believe this is the direct Taxpayers For Liberty mailing that Donald is referring to when he talks about the letter he got:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28160978/March-5-2010

    You’ll note that the mailing targets Jane Norton for her Ref C tax increase support — as I previously mentioned in this thread — and also for growing the size of the state health department by $40 million.

    Now about that $40 million, which we’ve yet to address here…

    Fortunately, 9news’ Adam Schrager was kind enough to conduct a truth test of a Norton campaign ad touting her cuts to government spending, which we can pull some numbers from:

    QUOTE: In Colorado, she cut government spending.

    TRUTH: This isn’t true and here’s why.

    …

    According to budget figures provided by the state, from when she took over to when she left CDPHE, Norton’s general fund budget decreased 47.40 percent. (Source: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/apphist.pdf). It went from $23,762,669 in fiscal year (FY) 1999-2000 to $12,500,105 in FY 2003-2004.) These are the figures Norton is using to defend her statement that “she cut government spending.”

    …

    Norton’s critics however say that is only part of the story as the other parts of her department’s budget, the Cash Funds and the Federal Funds, went up dramatically over that same period. State budget figures show CDPHE’s Cash Funds went from $56,013,323 in FY 1999-2000 to $86,023,467 in FY 2003-2004. CDPHE’s Federal Funds went from $147,103,845 in FY 1999-2000 to $159,729,485 in FY 2003-2004. (Source: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/apphist.pdf).

    TL;DR At the bureaucratic helm of the health department ’99-03, Norton cut spending out of general funds from $24M to $13M, but then increased spending out of cash funds from $56M to $86M, and increased spending out of federal funds from $147M to $160M. Adding those differences up (-$11M + $30M + $13M) shows a $32M total increase, within $8M of the Taxpayers For Liberty figure of $40M. Perhaps T4L tacked on another budget year to Schrager’s numbers?

    Either way, the T4L point remains on solid footing: Norton both raised taxes via Ref C and raised spending via the health dept.

  11.   Keith Olson
      March 18th, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

    Donald,
    Why do you spend so much time attacking Ken Buck? You are a Jane Norton operative who engages in the very tactics you accuse Ken Buck of. Your actions would really upset me if I thought your blog had any readership. What does really upset me is you write and post on Peoples Press Collective which does have an enviable following. Donald, would you enlighten us on who is sending the mass e-mailings that spread false and ugly rumors about Ken Buck. I have my thoughts on who it might be but I do not post accusations, I wait for substantial proof like an IP address.

  12.   T.L. James
      March 19th, 2010 @ 9:23 am

    It’s not that the site (PPC) won’t let your links through, Donald, it’s that there is something incompatible with your website’s software and/or RSS feed.

  13.   Donald Johnson
      March 19th, 2010 @ 9:31 am

    Keith,

    I’m amazed that you haven’t figured out that my number one priority for any political candidate is integrity. My second most important concern in this year’s election is electability. I want Republicans to win. What you also seem to be missing is that as a blogger who has no favorites in any of the GOP contests I call them as I see them. Having spent a career writing about and analyzing markets and political contests, I feel pretty confident in my ability to see who the probably winners and losers are. That folks don’t like my opinions is fine with me. Just don’t call me an operative for any candidate when I’m spending my money to support my blog and to pay to attend many of the events I cover.

    As all of the leading candidates will tell you, I’ve criticized them all at one point or another. And I’ve praised them all as well. If you don’t like what I’m writing about a candidate, you don’t like what’s happening to your candidate in the court of public opinion.

  14.   Donald Johnson
      March 19th, 2010 @ 9:39 am

    T.L.,

    The problem is with your security system. The security code is hard for tri-focal folks to read. At least it is for me. When I get the number wrong, the system sometimes publishes a comment anyway and publishes it twice after I get the next code right. I’m sure many potential commenters have been discouraged by the system and haven’t become part of the community as a result.

  15.   Donald Johnson
      March 19th, 2010 @ 9:52 am

    Chris, Yes, that’s the letter I have on my desk. Thanks for the link. As I replied to another questioner on FB,

    It distorts in several ways. First it accuses Norton of not returning a survey she says she’s never received. If I’d received a survey form an organization supporting my opponent, I wouldn’t return it either. Second, the letter accuses Norton of increasing budgets that she never really controlled. She was an administrator, not a legislator. That she claims she cuts costs bothers me, however, as I’ve blogged at http://www.businessword.com.

    Finally, like Buck, Norton has been for a balanced budget amendment for a long time, which I happen to think is silly. She’s clearly against tax increases and the huge budget deficit. The letter pretends otherwise. Yes, distortions are common in politics, but do we want Republicans to act like Dems?

    What the 9News Truth Test by Schrager really shows is that Norton had no budgetary control and shouldn’t be claiming she did.

  16.   Donald Johnson
      March 19th, 2010 @ 9:52 am

    Chris, Yes, that\’s the letter I have on my desk. Thanks for the link. As I replied to another questioner on FB,

    It distorts in several ways. First it accuses Norton of not returning a survey she says she\’s never received. If I\’d received a survey form an organization supporting my opponent, I wouldn\’t return it either. Second, the letter accuses Norton of increasing budgets that she never really controlled. She was an administrator, not a legislator. That she claims she cuts costs bothers me, however, as I\’ve blogged at http://www.businessword.com.

    Finally, like Buck, Norton has been for a balanced budget amendment for a long time, which I happen to think is silly. She\’s clearly against tax increases and the huge budget deficit. The letter pretends otherwise. Yes, distortions are common in politics, but do we want Republicans to act like Dems?

    What the 9News Truth Test by Schrager really shows is that Norton had no budgetary control and shouldn\’t be claiming she did.

  17.   Rachel Cox
      March 19th, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

    The tea party activists will support Ken Buck, but the majority of Republicans, who vote in the primary, will support Jane Norton.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!