PPC Homepage

Norton/Buck Footwear Flap hits National News

by | 11:40 pm, July 21, 2010 | 16 Comments

“I think it’s pretty obvious the single biggest difference between me and frankly all of the guys up here”–Jane Norton, at The Constitutionalist Today’s March Candidate Forum

Of course the video pirating and Democrat-friendly ColoradoPols posted an incomplete copy of the exchange, trying to make political hay out of Ken Buck’s comment that has drawn some national attention:

“Why should you vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, I think it’s fair to respond”–Ken Buck, referencing the Norton ad

Here’s the original post and video:

Video provenance matters. So does context.

The Denver Post’s Allison Sherry links to the shorter video and also the full post at PPC, unlike Ben Smith of Politico, who sticks to the :18 second, pirated version.

At PPC we find it interesting that the Jane Norton camp is making much of Ken Buck’s statement, given her penchant to mention her gender in other forums, even as far back as March–something that Sherry points out in her story:

For months, the former Lt. Gov’s campaign has lightheartedly, but repeatedly, brought gender into the race.

She has said that people should vote for her because she’s more electable among women.

Skip ahead to the 49:30 minute mark.

When Norton is asked “Jane, what’s the single biggest difference between yourself and Ken Buck?”

The audience knowingly guffaws and moans.

Her response: “I think it’s pretty obvious the single biggest difference between me and frankly all of the guys up here.”

The audience laughs. Just as they did with Buck’s comment.

**Update: The center-left Colorado Independent notes that Norton also brought up the “Well, I’m a girl first” line in her interview with Jon Caldara on his “Devil’s Advocate” program.

Share
Category: 2010, Colorado Politics, Elections, Events, Video

Comments

  1.   call sign viper
      July 21st, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

    do we really need more ‘evidence’ / reasons not to support BUCK??? get off the underdog band wagon

    come on people. that is just a sad speech.

  2.   Val
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 12:32 am

    Real women never, never use sex to get what they want. There is a name for them.

    Norton’s been using sex all along the campaign; even wearing girly, unprofessional dresses. I guess when all else fails, unprincipled women and their managers will stoop this low.

  3.   Mike Niland
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 12:45 am

    I think Jane looked in the mirror one day and realized no one can stop her.

    Those saucy dresses are going to the Senate.

  4.   Harry
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 6:04 am

    If anyone were to deal with the serious issue, how the senate candidates view women in the workplace, here is what is revealed.

    Each of the four Senate candidates has someone running their campaigns called a campaign manager. That person is probably the most important person in the campaign after the candidate themselves. In the case of the losing candidates, Norton and Romanoff, they have had multiple campaign managers.

    Here is the break down by sex of their campaign managers:
    Mike Bennet:male
    Andrew Romanoff(3 or 4):all male
    Jane Norton (2):both male
    Ken Buck:female

    I would suggest actions are a better way to look at a persons committment to equal opportunity rather than words. There is a reason why Buck is leading Norton according to the Denver Post poll among women and hispanics. He actually is diverse in his treatment of people and not just in cheap political rhetoric.

  5.   Keith Olson
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 7:37 am

    Putting things into perspective:
    Ken Buck responds to Jane Norton’s taunt to man up. Is that a reason to not vote for him when the alternative is to vote for a candidate who supported Ref C and still supports her decision on Ref C.

    She advocates amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens as long as they do 30 days of Community Service and pass a background check. (Difficult to do a background check on someone who’s identity is in question).

    She has determined that the public and relentless attack on a private citizen, Mr. Golyansky, is justified for political and personal gain.

    Ken’s tongue and cheek comment certainly pales in comparison to the damage a Norton win would subject Colorado and America to for the next six years. Give Jane six years to serve with McCain, Graham, and Cornyn and amnesty will be assured.

  6.   Val
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 8:42 am

    Norton’s playing the sex card should be ample reason to never allow her to ever represent us. If she will be that dirty and underhanded to the citizens of Colorado, just imagine how she’ll serve in the United States Senate.

    She will do anything and say anything to get what she wants.

    And now we learn that she is right there with McCain on the amnesty issue. (listen to Colorado Public Radio 7/16/10)

  7.   Donald Johnson
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 10:02 am

    My conservative, wife, a feminist who broke her share of glass ceilings during her career in journalism and business, watched the Norton ad with me.

    “Great ad,” she declared with a huge grin.

    Killer ad, I think.

    Women can say sexist things that smart men don’t dare say just as blacks can be extremely racist while we whites try to be politically correct.

    Face it, this is a winner for Norton and a loser for Buck. The question is, will Buck’s 10- to 16-point lead hold up? My sense is that Norton’s gaining on him pretty fast. And the timing for this couldn’t be better for Norton or worse for Buck.

    You can moan and groan about it all you want, but that’s politics and reality.

  8.   Val
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 10:16 am

    Donald,
    How is the sex card any different from the race card?

  9.   Donald Johnson
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 11:06 am

    Val,

    The sex card plays itself. Buck showed his real self in the eyes of a lot of women, and women out number men in the GOP primary and general election.

    I can’t think of any female politician who doesn’t dress to be attractive and subtly sexy. Some are more naturally sexy and attractive than others, of course. And some use botox to make themselves look better.

    During the campaign, I’ve never seen Norton in a low cut dress or revealing blouse. She can wear attractive skirts and she does.

    The only women who don’t take advantage of their sexuality are those who know their bodies and shapes are better covered up and de-emphasized than not. Justice Kagan, for example, is not a sexy woman. She’s just smart. So she plays up her smarts. If she had wisdom to go along with her smarts, she’d be a real winner.

    Personally, I think it’s unbecoming for a woman to complain about how another woman’s good looks make her a natural born . . . person of ill repute. It’s what we call going negative, and, of course, Buck people don’t believe in going negative. Using female snarkiness, to be polite, is not helping Buck, imho.

  10.   Val
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

    Donald,
    I have virtually no problem with pretty women. I have no problem with Botox and plastic surgery. Hell, I’d do it myself if I had enough money.

    I have a huge problem with a woman whose best way to distinguish herself is that she’s a “girl,” and then whines when Ken uses the same idea, in an informal friendly group, to distinguish himself.

    Jane, show us something about your brain.

  11.   Brian Wilson
      July 22nd, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

    @Donald, so your wife likes the ad, eh? What does she think about you supporting Norton just because you think she’s hot?

  12.   Laura Victoria
      July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

    Ok, I admit it. I think Jane is well-coiffed, and she’d attractive in general. I think politically she made a good ploy in the way out of context ad. Your wife is well informed and knows what’s lead up to all of this. Does she not agree with Val and me that Buck clearly was not being sexist?

    The problem as I belatedly clued in is that the vast majority of voters don’t know the backstory nearly as intimately as we do – lucky them. So Don and everybody, I do think Ken needs to jump on this, so what do you think he needs to do, if anything?

  13.   Cindy L.
      July 23rd, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

    “I can’t think of any female politician who doesn’t dress to be attractive and subtly sexy. Some are more naturally sexy and attractive than others, of course. And some use botox to make themselves look better.” Donald Johnson

    Um Donald I can think of one right off the bat: Hillary Clinton. How do you say sexy with polyester? Not.

  14.   Keith Olson
      July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

    Laura,
    Ken’s campaign has weathered the following;
    1. A candidate with all the endorsements and money associated with the national and state GOP backing.
    2. The cutting off of funding for his campaign by the aforementioned when they put Norton in. (Remember he raised 300,000.00 before Norton entered and then raised 40,000 the quarter after she entered.
    3. Complaints ad nauseum about 501 and 527 backing. ( Paticularly by Ben and Donald).
    4. A Norton funded FEC complaint.
    5. A manufactured “ethics” scandal.
    6. A four to one deficit in fundraising.
    7. A campaign staff 1/10th the size of Nortons (But 10 times the heart)

    All he accomplished through all of that was move from 25 points down in the polls to a 10 to 16 point lead over his opponent this past June. He then withstood the ethics barrage to lose one point in the latest poll. He has steadily climbed in the head to head polls against the Dems on Rasmussen while Norton has lost ground.

    His popularity had previously caused Norton to withdraw from the state assembly giving Buck top line on the ballot.

    Norton fired her nationally renowned campaign manager and replaced him with Penry.

    Even Donald has opined that Buck is better on TV, on the radio, and in head to head debates.

    Ken Buck is now leading in all voter demographics to include women.

    It would appear that Ken Buck is just the more likeable and attractive candidate. Jane Norton is the establishment GOP. The only people not upset with the establishment are the people in the establishment i.e. Bill Owens, John McCain, John Cornyn, Lindsay Graham, and the pandering PACs.

    Ken Buck has been immunized by his being persona non gratis among the GOP elitists. If Buck wins count on several of the old state GOP elitists to be marginalized. The old state GOP has done nothing but produce losses; Coors, McGinnis, Beauprez, and likely Norton. And now they want to annoint yet another candidate to replace McGinnis. I think it is time, and I am not alone, for a changing of the guard.

  15.   Peoples Press Collective | Colorado Politics | PPC’s Helpful Research Monkeys Correct Norton Attack Ad :
      July 29th, 2010 @ 7:03 am

    [...] “Buck Responds To Norton Ad: “She Has Questioned My Manhood” on July 17th and “Norton/Buck Footwear Flap Hits National News” on the [...]

  16.   Doug Groothuis
      August 5th, 2010 @ 12:46 am

    Mrs. Norton has the better record and the better character. Forget the rest and elect her!

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!