PPC Homepage

Ken Buck gets a nice writeup in the National Review; Jane Norton isn’t as ‘tough’ on the stump

by | 1:00 pm, June 5, 2010 | 25 Comments

Ken Buck gets a nice writeup on National Review Online, which also notes that he and his primary opponent, Jane Norton, agree on the issues, but Buck's a little tougher on the stump and therefore may have a better chance of beating Obama Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet. 54% of Colorado's voters are women. Will they go for the tough guy? 32% are independents. Will they go for a Jim DeMint Republican? It takes money to win elections. Can secretive Washington- and Virginia-based PACs and 527s funded by Buck's wealthy friends carry the day? How can Buck's supporters complain that Norton is backed by John McCain and the national Republicans when he is backed by secretive 527s and political action committees (PACs), Jim DeMint, an out-of-state conservative blogger or two and the New York City-based National Review? Where's the consistency? These are questions Democrats will be asking. Will Buck have good answers? Can Norton be tough without being shrill? Should she try? Is it a crime to win support from your brother in law who also happens to be a John McCain backer? Can Buck debate Norton without pulling a Rick Lazio, who blew it in a debate with Hillary Clinton? Can Norton differentiate herself from Buck? Is she a me too candidate? What can Norton do and say to show she's as smart and politically effective as Buck? How can Norton show she has backing from the grass roots and Tea Party, 9.12 Groups and R Block folks as well as from former Gov. Bill Owens and the GOP establishment? How can she show that being backed by successful Republican politicians and the establishment is a positive and not more politics as usual? Why is it good to have the support  of Washington insiders as well as from secretive PACS and 527s funded by your friends as Buck and most politicians do? The NRO profile of Buck, and to a lesser extent, of Norton, is the kind of article that bugs me because the reporter doesn't know the candidates, doesn't know Colorado politics and relies on a couple of academics and sources tied to both candidates for their opinions about the race. It's clear that Buck would be a Jim DeMint Republican, but it's also clear that Norton would not be a McCain Republican. What we want is a Colorado Republican. I think the "party brass" will aggressively back whoever wins the primary. LINK: Bucking the party brass; Ken Buck is rattling the GOP establishment in Colorado's Senate primary. By Robert Costa.  
Category: Colorado Politics
Tags: >

Comments

  1.   Robert southwell
      June 5th, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

    Buck v Norton is hands-down the most interesting race this year.

  2.   Laura Victoria
      June 5th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

    Personally, I’d find it a lot more interesting if these two stopped the childish, “I’m the biggest conservative..No you’re not, I am” games and get more specific on the big issues and address a broader range of issues. It’s about time.

  3.   Donald Johnson
      June 5th, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

    Laura, I agree. And the next two months will be very interesting.

  4.   Brian Wilson
      June 5th, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

    Don’t even get me started on this one. It’s clear you’ve gone off the deep end. 527′s are separate from candidates BY LAW. This does not make them secretive, but it means they have NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to the candidate. And how do you get the twisted idea that Jane is not a McCain Republican? And to insinuate that Buck would lose a debate with Norton is just silly.

    Just throwing in a few good points about Jane not being as smart or politically effective as Buck does not validate your innuendo and smears.

  5.   Griffin
      June 5th, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

    I think Buck is done. If people would just read the FEC complaint, it would make understanding Buck much easier. Read it here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_buck_complaint_pdf.html

    I’m not a lawyer, but would certainly appreciate a lawyer’s opinion on the content of the complaint. It alleges:

    Buck’s buddy Jerry Morgensen bundled a quarter of all Buck’s donations, sat on Buck’s Finance Committee, directed funding of multiple shady 527 and 501(c)(6) groups, and according to the FEC complaint, Morgensen’s bank also loaned Buck $120,000 for his campaign on a property worth $167,000. Is that normal for a bank to loan cash for the majority of the house’s value? Or was that a special and illegal favor? Isn’t it illegal coordination if Morgensen has a hand in both the campaign and independent expenditures finances?

    On top of that, Morgensen is the CEO of a company that gets hundreds of Millions of dollars in Federal contracts every year, and as such, is barred from donating to Federal candidates. How are Morgensen’s donations not illegal?

    The complaint also cites the damning fact that Buck’s campaign manager announced third party ad buys before they hit air. How could he know that if there was no coordination?

    Are these baseless charges, and if so why are they? If they have merit, what is the likelihood of prosecution?

  6.   Harry
      June 6th, 2010 @ 1:51 am

    Griffin:
    Let me make sure I understand you.
    Buck is done because the Norton campaign sent in a letter of complaint to the FEC which is written “on information and belief” meaning I don’t know that it is true, but if it isn’t it makes the person who is kicking my ass in the polls look bad.
    Does a bank loan money on a residence more than 50% of the value of the residence? Have you heard of a mortgage?
    Mortgensen is said to own the bank, not to have made a personal loan.
    This is Charlie Black NRSC playbook nonesense.
    Now the real question, when Frazier was bought off by the NRSC to leave the race shortly before Jane C Norton offically entered the campaign when did she authorize it and approve it?
    That is also from the Norton campaign sleaze manual.

  7.   Silver Bullet
      June 6th, 2010 @ 6:45 am

    Griffin:

    In the FEC compalint that you write about, even you use the word: ALLEGE. That’s right, anyone can allege anything about anyone at anytime.

    Burden of proof is the issue. Unless there is some hard, cold evidence it is impossible to prove allegations.

    This is just a cheap political ploy by Jane Norton’s campaign and the voters will see it that way. They saw through it when Jeff Crank filed two FEC reports against Doug Lamborn.

    It’s the oldest political gag in the book.

  8.   Silver Bullet
      June 6th, 2010 @ 7:00 am

    Donald:

    You misrepresent Charlie Black. The issue isn’t whether he is a McCain supporter or not, the issue is that he is one of the most powerful lobbyists in DC and the concern is that Jane will be forever beholden to him for her seat (should she win). You know and I know that your statement about Charlie is less than honest here.

    You’re statement: “It’s clear that Buck would be a Jim DeMint Republican, but it’s also clear that Norton would not be a McCain Republican.” Is false. Because the truth is, no one knows what kind of republican a candidate will be like until they get into office and establish a voting record.

    Quite frankly, Donald you lack credibility as a writer because while you are trying to appear like you are neutral in this article, it is evident in your statements that you support Jane. So why not just be upfront about it, state your support for her and write articles in defense or support of her. You gain far more credibility doing that.

  9.   Donald Johnson
      June 6th, 2010 @ 7:43 am

    I should have put this in the blog.

    Buck is no tougher on the stump than Norton. He sounds like a guy and she sounds like a woman, and to some guys, that makes him sound tougher.

    Norton strongly states here positions, and she’s as good as Buck at throwing both obvious and subtle jabs.

    At heart, they’re both political pros. They’re both pretty laid back people. This is especially true in meetings with reporters and bloggers as well, I suspect, as with supporters and opponents. They’re both smart and are careful about what they say and how they say it. Yet, both have stumbled at times, as have the most successful politicians of our times—W., the Clintons, the Obamas and every member of Congress.

  10.   Griffin
      June 6th, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

    Of all the banks in the world, isn’t it interesting that Buck happens to get a loan from the bank where his top donor is the owner?

    It’s not information and belief that proves that the campaign had knowledge of the third party ads before they ran. Buck’s Campaign Manager bragged to the press about them.

    Also, FEC files show that Morgensen maxed out in personal donations, but he’s a federal contractor, so the donations are illegal.

  11.   Donald Johnson
      June 6th, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

    Please explain, Griffin. Why it’s illegal for Morgensen to make contributions to Senate candidates when defense conractors, hospitals and about every other company that is a Federal contractor makes such contributions through their owners, employees and PACs? Did Morgensen just screw up and not cover his tracks the way he was supposed to, or what?

  12.   Silver Bullet
      June 6th, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

    Oooh. Griffin with all your speculation, the one about the bank loan is simply fascinating. Imagine, Ken Buck gets a loan from a bank owned by Morgensen, I think your on to Buck.

    This is the kind of speculation is silly and full of nonsense just like Jane Norton’s complaint to the FEC

  13.   Silver Bullet
      June 6th, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

    One more thing Griffin:

    You make this claim, “It’s not information and belief that proves that the campaign had knowledge of the third party ads before they ran. Buck’s Campaign Manager bragged to the press about them.”

    Where’s the link?

  14.   Griffin
      June 6th, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

    From what I’ve read online, which I admit is not the best source, it’s illegal for a federal contractor to give to a federal candidate.

    You make a good point about defense contractors and hospitals. I would be interested in an election lawyer’s reading of the law banning federal contractors from giving to a federal candidate. What are the loopholes? It seems it would be one thing for a secretary to give to a candidate, but the CEO of a company receiving hundreds of millions in federal contracts is a different story.

  15.   Griffin
      June 6th, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

    Silver Bullet, it was in the FEC complaint which I posted earlier.

    Here it is:

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/04/13/virginia-based-political-group-to-run-pro-buck-ads/

  16.   Val
      June 6th, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

    Sometimes Norton does not strongly state her positions. Try this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C9ylzzx-FA&feature=related

    Some of you seem to not understand that a person is not the corporation. The corporation is a totally separate entity. Has the corporation given to Buck? I abhor how easily you throw out accusations without any understanding.

    Also, when accusing a private person of corruption, one should tread lightly. Norton and Penry have already tread too heavily (on Caplis and Silverman).

    I hope that private citizen sues the pants off Norton, Owens, Grice, Johnson, and every other shameless malcontent who has the audacity to throw that private citizen’s name around with total disregard.

    If just one alleged infringement is proven false, Jane “McCain” Norton is done.

  17.   Val
      June 6th, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

    Sometimes Norton does not strongly state her positions. Try this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C9ylzzx-FA&feature=related

    Some of you seem to not understand that a person is not the corporation. The corporation is a totally separate entity. Has the corporation given to Buck? I abhor how easily you throw out accusations without any understanding.

    Also, when accusing a private person of corruption, one should tread lightly. Norton and Penry have already tread too heavily (on Caplis and Silverman).

    I hope that private citizen sues the pants off Norton, Owens, Grice, Johnson, and every other shameless malcontent who has the audacity to throw that private citizen\’s name around with total disregard.

    If just one alleged infringement is proven false, Jane \"McCain\" Norton is done.

  18.   Keith Olson
      June 6th, 2010 @ 5:33 pm

    Griffin wrote: Also, FEC files show that Morgensen maxed out in personal donations, but he’s a federal contractor, so the donations are illegal.

    Griffin was then called out and completely backs down: You make a good point about defense contractors and hospitals. I would be interested in an election lawyer’s reading of the law banning federal contractors from giving to a federal candidate. What are the loopholes?

    Enough said!

  19.   Val
      June 6th, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

    Morgensen is not a federal contractor.

  20.   Griffin
      June 6th, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

    Morgensen is the CEO of a company that received hundreds of millions of dollars last year in Federal contracts, including $200 Million in Obama stimulus funds. How is he not a federal contractor? Maybe there is some loophole because not all of his funds come from the federal government.

    I love the comments about not attacking some private citizen, like he’s some nice grandma that gives $10/month to candidates. He’s owns a multi-billion dollar business that needs federal contracts to survive. No wonder he donates obscene sums to politicians of both parties. He’s buying access to federal contracts from federal grants.

  21.   Silver Bullet
      June 6th, 2010 @ 6:21 pm

    Okay Griffin, where is it illegal for a campaign manager to know about an ad campaign expenditure on behalf of a client? Can you show me the law? It is illegal for communication coordination between a campaign and a 527. In other words, the message cannot be coordinated. I find that in 11 CFR 109.22 (a)(b)(c)even that is very difficult to prove. Hence, I suspect the liberal use of the terms, “upon information and belief” sprinkled throughout Norton’s complaint. They have no proof, I seen no exhibits brought to the FEC that prove their allegations.

    Finally, It is obviously lost on you that a character assassination suit is easier for a private citizen like Morgensen to bring against someone like Norton or Charles Grice.

  22.   Val
      June 6th, 2010 @ 7:33 pm

    Griffin, you don’t understand the difference between a private citizen and a corporation. It doesn’t matter what the private citizen does for a living, unless that private citizen is also a federal contractor.

    Did the corporation make the contributions? The answer is “No.”

    If someone associated with the Buck campaign was told that an ad buy was coming, that does not constitute collusion. Federal law prohibits coordination of the message and there is virtually no evidence of that.

    A character assassination suit is easier for a private citizen like Morgensen to bring against someone like Norton or Charles Grice or any bloggers to continue to pass that information on.

    I think Norton and her bull dog Penry really blew it on that radio show.

  23.   Donald Johnson
      June 6th, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

    When someone is the owner/CEO of a large federal government contractor and a bank, he is a public person. When that person gets involved in politics as a contributor to political campaigns, he becomes more of a public person. When a complaint is filed with a federal agency such as the FEC, he becomes more of a public person.

    Public persons are much less protected by libel and slander laws than private persons who don’t post on message boards or blogs and don’t make it known to politicians that they are major contributors to politicians and parties. Under the First Amendment, anyone can express an opinion about a politician or public person. We are not in Canada or the U.K. where public persons and politicians can hide behind slander and libel laws.

    Morgensen would not have a case and undoubtedly knows it.

  24.   Silver Bullet
      June 6th, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

    Just because a person owns a business or several of them does not mean he is a public figure. There are three definitions of “public person”

    1. a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs.

    2. a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

    3. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.

    I don’t believe Mr. Morgensen falls into any of these catagories because up until the time of the Norton’s radio interview, no one knew who Morgensen was. I believe Norton showed recklessness in her accusations about him. Does he have a case? I don’t know, if I were him, I’d be looking into it.

  25.   Harry
      June 7th, 2010 @ 8:00 am

    Don:
    You can’t be as stupid as you are letting on.
    Owning a corporation makes you a public figure? Being a CEO makes you a public figure?

    Accusing someone of a crime is libel per se.
    I don’t know if the morons in the Norton campaign are going to be sued by Morgensen, but it looks to me like he has a cause of action against them and Griffin.
    I swore you recently wrote the Jane C Norton was smart.

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!