In what can only be described as bizarre, former Democratic United States Attorney for Colorado, Henry Solano came out swinging in defense of Ken Buck. Solano writing a guest commentary in the Denver Post this morning praises Ken Buck’s tenure at the US Attorney’s office. Solano writes; “During my five-year tenure, historic accomplishments were achieved with Buck as a supervisor. He was instrumental in the success of the office and that of the staff attorneys involved, including opening fully staffed offices in Durango and Grand Junction and establishing an appellate division.”

Solano goes on to address the Golyansky case which has been the source of numerous attack ads against Ken Buck. The case was first used by Jane Norton to attack Ken Buck in her unsuccessful primary campaign. Michael Bennet and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee continue to use the case in an attempt to undermine what now appears to be an enviable and highly successful career at the US Attorney’s office.

Solano’s is not satisfied with merely restoring Ken Buck’s reputation, but goes on the attack against fellow Democrat Ted Strickland. Solano accuses Strickland, who replaced Solano as the Colorado US Attorney, as exploiting the Columbine massacre for political purpose. “ Between my leaving and Strickland becoming U.S. attorney, the Columbine tragedy occurred. The twice-rejected gun case was resurrected just when he was new. “

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16471389

Ken Buck has proven to be an accessible candidate, consenting to appearances on talk shows and television. Many of these appearances could best be described as entering a lion’s den.  Buck has certainly acquired the scars of a candidate willing to run the gauntlet of a lengthy campaign that has garnered national attention.

As a result of his most recent foray into the lion’s den he is being excoriated by the liberal blogosphere and the main stream media. His appearance on Meet the Press with David Gregory was a well scripted partisan attack.  Gregory unashamedly set aside journalistic ethics to pursue an agenda designed to benefit Buck’s opponent in the Colorado senate race.

Ken Buck will most assuredly continue to be amenable to requests from media regardless of the pitfalls.  That is a good thing as voters have a predilection toward a candidate who avails themselves to close scrutiny.  So how has Buck’s opponent responded to requests for access and scrutiny?

Michael Bennet, the appointed junior senator from Colorado, refuses to appear on popular conservative radio talk shows in Colorado such as Mike Rosen, Caplis and Silverman, and Peter Boyle.  Senator Bennet understands the danger of entering the lion’s den and does not possess the courage or confidence to take on the lions.  Bennet’s weakness stands in stark contrast to Buck who enters all arenas undaunted by the challenges.     

Bennet understands the cost benefit ratio of such transparency.  He has determined nothing is to be gained by subjecting himself to pointed questions on his controversial voting record.  Case in point; Bennet previously stated he would be willing to lose his job for his vote for Health Care legislation.  His actions during the campaign belie his previous statement.   Bennet has chosen to run from his record in an attempt to hold on to the very job he boastfully offered to sacrifice.

 While in Washington Bennet is proud of his loyalty to President Obama and Harry Reid. In Colorado he presents a different persona.  Like an unfaithful husband who returns home to his wife, indiscretions are hidden to avoid the discovery of one’s infidelity.  Since the primary Bennet has forestalled a visit by the person who is responsible for his betrayal to his constituents, President Obama.   

Bennet recognizes that his infidelity and violation of a trust bestowed upon him by the people of Colorado would result in certain dissolution.  As in any affair, actions not only hint at the unfaithfulness they allow for a proper conclusion that overwhelms the ubiquitous lies and deception accompanying such unfaithfulness. 

Bennet’s actions appear to be symptoms of a much larger problem.  His cynical belief that he knows what is best for the citizens of Colorado mirrors the flawed thought process of one of history’s infamous characters:

“Love to my country actuates my present conduct, however it may appear inconsistent to the world, who very seldom judge right of any man’s actions.”  Benedict Arnold  c. 1780

While Bennet is certainly no traitor his actions suggest that he serves an ideal rather than the people of Colorado.  There can be no other explanation for his duplicitous actions.  

Bennet’s entire campaign has been defined by his need to conceal what the Denver Post called a “spineless” record in Washington DC.  His recent “endorsement” by the Denver Post was more of a reprimand than a validation of his fitness to serve as a senator.

Ken Buck undoubtedly will continue to be accessible and transparent while we continue to be reminded by Michael Bennet that… What happens in Washington stays in Washington.

When you hold the title of preeminent newspaper in Colorado, candidates, seeking votes from large swaths of the electorate, cherish with anticipation your endorsement.  Those receiving the endorsement will trumpet the validation as if it were a coronation, while those snubbed will predictably downplay the significance. All the while the media will claim their endorsement is nothing more than an opinion to generate discussion and debate.

The recent releases of The Denver Post’s candidate endorsements are proving to be more of an indictment than an endorsement.

The Post’s editorial board endorsed Obama in 2008. It was clearly a tepid endorsement with dissent.

 http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10741575?source=pkg

It was an endorsement made with the “economy” as the central focus to a back drop of two wars. At the time, their endorsement reflected their belief Obama had the steadier hand to lead our nation.

Consider the recent endorsements, which are certainly contrary to the Obama endorsement… I can hear Chuck Plunkett screaming “I told you so.” Chuck’s rants coupled with Dan Haley’s doubts about the Obama endorsement must have turned to a resolve unkind to Obama and anyone who voted lock step with his failed policies.

 http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10741574?source=pkg

On October 7th The Denver Post endorsed Gardner over Markey citing the following:

But while candidate Betsy Markey presented herself as a centrist who would be a good fit for the district, Congresswoman Markey quickly strayed to the left. We think the district would be better served by her opponent, state Rep. Cory Gardner.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/07/denver-post-endorses-cory-gardner/15967/

The Denver Post this morning (100810) endorsed John Salazar citing his being a centrist. This is confusing given his votes for Obama Care and the stimulus bill. Perhaps the Denver Post felt his vote against Cap and Trade carried more weight. What his vote on Cap and Trade does reflect is a willingness to remain somewhat independent from Pelosi.  

He’s a centrist Democrat with a fiscally conservative bent.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/08/denver-post-endorses-john-salazar/16012/

This evening’s endorsement of Ryan Frazier seems to underscore the Denver Post’s discontent with not only this administration but those candidates who lack independence and have shown a wanton disregard for their constituents. Plunkett again tips his and the editorial boards hand with this comment:

Since he was first elected in 2006, Perlmutter has been a solid vote for the Democratic majority in Congress, and has supported the Obama administration’s over-reaching agenda. He voted for the cap-and-trade bill that would drive up energy costs as well as health care reform that will drive up costs, the so-called “card check” bill and the nearly $1 trillion stimulus.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/08/denver-post-endorses-ryan-frazier/16019/

So what does all of this mean? Does this translate into a tangible predictor on who the Denver Post will “coronate” for the US Senate Race?

Consider this; The Denver Post has certainly been quick to report every gaffe… (high heels come to mind.) They have cut him no slack on issues they perceive he has changed positions on. (I prefer to call them issues he has clarified.) They have devoted plenty of ink to the Golyansky reprimand with minimal ink dedicated to pointing out Golyansky was fined $25.00 and received one day of probation. This from a judge obviously sending a message to the US Attorney for bringing the case forward. But I digress.

So what about the Denver Post’s reporting on Michael Bennet?  Bennet has been scolded for his deceitful ads by the Denver Post. How he reacted to that scolding, which is to say he ignored the Denver Post, might have done some damage. I think it is more instructive to look at the Denver Post’s comments when they endorsed Bennet over Romanoff. They point out why they endorsed him but they also point out concerns:

We have yet to see Bennet’s independent streak emerge in the Senate, which has been disappointing. But we suspect if he wins in November, we will see him step out more forcefully on issues. We can only hope. He has promised us to be a budget hawk, working to cut back government spending and tackle the nation’s serious structural problems when it comes to the budget.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15527463

Their endorsement, with the above cited caveats, harkens back to their endorsement “with doubts” of Obama in 2008.

The Denver Post excoriates Perlmutter for supporting “Obama’s over-reaching agenda.” I have to say Bennet bests Perlmutter and just might be more deserving of being the true rubberstamp for Obama’s over-reaching agenda.

Ken Buck has certainly proven to be a leader and an unwilling to be subservient to the establishment. The GOP, on both a state and national level, threw everything they had at him to advance their candidate during the primary. What they failed to recognize was Ken’s self confidence and determination…The GOP could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they taken time to vet Ken Buck. A short trip to Weld County would have given them plenty of reason to avoid tangling with him.  Had they done their due diligence they would have learned that Ken Buck is a leader. He won election as the Weld District Attorney on a promise to cut crime and beat back the gang violence.  He met his promise by cutting crime by 50 percent, depending on which statistical database one chooses.

The letter to Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland pointed out that Buck did increase spending from 2005 to 2009 by 30 percent because the office expanded district and county courtrooms. In that same time, population of Weld County increased by 41 percent and crime in Weld County has decreased by 50 percent, the letter said.  

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/05/12/weld-county-commissioners-buck-is-fiscally-responsible/9619/

Will the Denver Post endorse Ken Buck? I would not hazard a guess.  What I can predict is that their endorsement, if it is Ken Buck, will not be riddled with caveats. The Denver Post knows what they get with Ken Buck.  More importantly, those same establishment politicians who expended so much energy and money on opposing his candidacy know what they are getting, and it is not a RUBBERSTAMP.

As Michael Bennet wakes from his fitful sleep this morning, who could fault him for wanting to crawl back into bed and pull the blankets over his head.  This morning’s release by the Denver Post and 9 News of their Senate poll reinforces exactly how bleak Bennet’s chances of besting Tea Party favorite Ken Buck truly are.  
http://www.denverpost.com/elec…

The Denver Post/ 9 News poll shows Ken Buck with a 48 to 43 lead over Bennet.  The significance of the 5 point deficit for Bennet is magnified by the results showing independents in Buck’s column 53 to 34. Additionally, a string of independent polls leading up to today’s release shows Bennet’s campaign strategy is failing. Rasmussen poll of September 29 showed Ken Buck with an 8 point lead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

This poll was followed by the Marist poll of October 1 echoing the 8 point lead.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/w…

Nate Silver of the New York Times, before the most recent poll, deemed Buck’s chances of becoming the next Colorado Senator at 79% based on a compilation of recent polling. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n…

Bennet’s votes for Obama’s health care legislation and TARP certainly have been votes Bennet has consciously attempted to distance himself from.  His decision to decline visits from the President during the run up to the general election underscores his recognition of the toxicity of his well documented loyalty to the President’s agenda.

Bennet, handicapped by the need to distance himself from his voting record, is left with attacking Buck on social issues. Not very effective when social issues are far down the list of voter’s primary concerns this election cycle.

Bennet ads have tried to convey Ken Buck as too extreme for Colorado with minimal effect on voter sentiment. Buck’s ability to withstand an endless onslaught of negative advertising by his primary opponent, Jane Norton, should have given Bennet an indication of the futility of such a strategy.  On the other hand, Bennet is left with few options given his acknowledgement his voting record is best left in the unmentionable category.

The Marist Poll reinforces Bennet’s compulsion to downplay, if not completely ignore his record in Washington.  President Obama enjoyed a 54 to 45 percent margin of victory in the 2008 election against Republican candidate John McCain.  Those numbers were aided by President Obama’s impressive wins in Denver County (76% to 24%) and a comfortable margin of victory within the Denver suburbs (56% to 44%).  Current sentiment in Colorado shows voter dissatisfaction with Obama and the current state of the economy. That dissatisfaction is proving to be an anchor for Michael Bennet.

Crosstabs from the October 1 Marist poll reflects just how damaging Bennet’s close ties to Obama are in this climate of disenchantment with the current administration. The Marist poll shows Bennet with a 65-31 advantage in Denver/Boulder over Buck, a drop off of 11 points from the 2008 Presidential election.  The Marist poll gets uglier for Bennet when comparing the Denver suburbs.  Marist shows Buck polling ahead of Bennet 57-38, a gaudy 18 point deficit for Bennet.

The polling of “very enthusiastic”, which indicates the likelihood of voter turnout, could be a harbinger of bad news for Bennet on Election Day.  In the only region Bennet can point to as solidly in his camp, Marist polling reports 34% of Denver/Boulder supporters being very enthusiastic.  By means of contrast, those areas of the state Ken Buck is polling ahead, including the Denver suburbs, 46% report being very enthusiastic.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/w…

If the people who control the purse strings for the Democratic Party are reading the same tea leaves. Bennet might have justifiable cause to remain huddled under his covers.  With triage in full swing, Bennet just might find himself losing national funds to finance his failing campaign strategies

Michael Bennet was met by “Rubberstamp Man” upon his arrival for this first debate with Ken Buck. Allison Sherry of the Denver Post was unkind enough to post the photo on “The Spot” and then tweeted it.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/09/11/a-rubberstamp-against-bennet/14678/
If the Buck campaign was hoping to drive home the point that Bennet is a rubberstamp for Obama and Reid, Ms. Sherry certainly helped spread the message.

Allison Sherry’s article on the debate leaves the reader wondering if this was a cross examination or a debate. Clearly Buck’s skill as a prosecutor is highlighted in the article:

Buck pointed out that several media outlets have labeled the ad misleading and said comments were taken out of context, but Bennet said those findings were mistaken.
“So everybody’s mistaken but you?” Buck responded, to loud cheering and jeering.

Buck then asked whether Bennet supported a bill that devoted $1.5 million in earmarks to pay for a Pennsylvania airport named after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., that serves fewer than 20 people a day.

“I’m sure that’s true,” Bennet said. “It was certainly not of interest to me.”

The crowd roared.

Buck said, “$1.5 million is certainly of interest to all of us.”

Bennet said he misheard the question and that he thought Buck was asking if he authorized the earmark because of Murtha’s involvement.

“I will not use your misstatement in a commercial,” Buck said.
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_16054632?source=commented-#ixzz0zKNqKbxP.

Mike Littwin, also of the Denver Post, highlighted the same exchange in his article:

Buck asked whether Bennet supported a bill that had – yes – an earmark, and not just an earmark, but one that put in $1.5 million to pay for a Pennsylvania airport named after the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., an airport, according to Buck, that serves fewer than 20 people a day.
“I’m sure that’s true,” Bennet said. “It was certainly not of interest to me.”

The crowd caught the gaffe immediately. Bennet didn’t care about government pork? Is that really what he said?
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16054668#ixzz0zKPbfeyU

ABC News, in recapping the debate, helps Buck’s cause by pointing out that the Denver Post has called Bennet’s ads dubious:

The two also disagreed over the veracity of Bennet’s recent negative TV ad. In an editorial Saturday, the Denver Post said the ad “offers a number of out-of-context quotes and dubious assertions regarding Buck’s positions.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/buck-and-bennet-trade-jabs-in-feisty-colorado-senate-debate.html

The Associated Press gets in on the act by noting “several news organizations” have called the Bennet ads misleading.

The ad uses snippets of Buck’s remarks to describe him as too conservative. Buck and several news organizations have described it as misleading

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig-I88jz782TWePtX3QrYHQWu5vAD9I65N8G0.

The Denver Post, ABC, and the AP certainly were injurious to Bennet. Bennet is in trouble when the liberal media finds it difficult to paint a poor Bennet performance in a positive light. I would assume Bennet’s performance was much worse than the recap. One can only imagine how the tradtionally conservative media outlets will portray his performance. Michael Bennet would be better served by not debating Ken Buck. Bennet learned last night why lawyers always advise their clients not to testify…prosecutors know how to bring out the worst in people during cross examination.

On July 16th Jane Norton was interviewed on Colorado Public Radio.  The transcript below clearly states Jane Norton’s interest in establishing a pathway to citizenship for the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants. 

Jane: Some of the hispanic clergy have said and I think it is an interesting idea; If they wanted to stay they would got to law enforcement and say I am here illgally. And they would received punishment and they would have a record. And they would go to the back of the line. They would submit themselves to a background check and they would go to the back of the line.

Host: And they wouldn’t be deported necessarily?

Jane: Well they could be if they didn’t pass a background check, or if they had infractions that would be, that would be troublesome. The other thing is right now they could face up to three….thirty day imprisonment and of course we don’t have enough jail room, if that were, if all would come forward to this. So one of the suggestions is then they do 30 days community service. So I think it is an interesting option. But I do believe right now that barring some kind of solution like that, they would have to leave the country.

It is understandable Jane Norton has leanings toward amnesty and a pathway to citizenship, she was McCain’s Colorado co-chair during his failed run for the presidency.  It also is clear that the Republican Party’s Senators Graham, Cornyn, and McCain have all endorsed and worked tirelessly to get Jane elected. That trio have long advocated for yet another failed immigration policy of amnesty.  What is truly disturbing is Senator Michael Bennet had a guest opinion piece published in today’s Greeley Tribune.  Bennet’s words and Norton’s words are frighteningly similar.

I support requiring undocumented immigrants to undergo criminal background checks, learn English and pay all back taxes and fines. The path should also give priority to those people who have been playing by the rules by sending undocumented immigrants to the back of the line for citizenship.

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20100721/READERS/100729943&parentprofile=search

In February Jane Norton was called out by Tom Tancredo for her stance on immigration. 

“I ask that Jane clarify her comments and explain what a ‘workable’ immigration system actually is,” Tancredo is quoted to say in the release, which captures Tancredo’s rapid-fire style. “That has become a code word for amnesty legislation. This kind of pro-amnesty rhetoric is virtually identical to that of John McCain.”

http://coloradoindependent.com/47435/alleged-norton-comments-on-%E2%80%98workable%E2%80%99-immigration-system-draw-tancredo-wrath

Jane Norton is not the strong conservative we need on immigration.  Ken Buck has been in the trenches fighting illegal immigration while Jane Norton is aligned with McCain and Senator Michael Bennet (D) on amnesty and pathways to citizenship.  The GOP establishment just does not get it.  Do we need any additional proof that Jane Norton will align herself with the liberal wing of the Republican Party?  She even said she would seek the mentoring of Lisa Murkowski if elected. 

The true Jane Norton is revealing herself.  Are Colorado conservatives ready to say no to yet one more wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Trying to convince a committed Norton supporter of the error in their thinking is as futile as going onto Coloradopols and convincing one of the regular ideologues to become a conservative. Okay, perhaps that is a poor comparison. Moving on. I certainly do not expect my rebuttal to change a Norton supporter’s mind. My intent is to offer a dissenting opinion for those readers who are still undecided.

Was the information of Jane Norton supporting Ref C over the top? Was the labeling her an insider over the top? Or was it the mention of the NRSC obtaining web addresses for Norton prior to her announcement over the top?

Was pointing out she was selected by John McCain to run for senate (weeks after Ken Buck and Ryan Frazier had announced) over the top? Was the claim she was a lobbyist over the top? Or perhaps it was the claim that she was the sister-in-law of Charlie Black that was over the top.

Was this information detrimental to Jane Norton, certainly. She entered this race with pockets bulging from Washington fundraisers the first two weeks following her announcement. She was proud to announce that at the beginning of the campaign. She had the endorsements of Old School state Republicans like Owens and Brown. The money in Colorado dried up for Frazier and Buck as soon as she entered the race. She proudly stated that she met with her friend John McCain before she decided to enter the race. At the time she made the statement she believed name dropping was key to validating her candidacy. Historically names, endorsements, and willing donors were the keys to success……..but this is a different time in history.

She had national party regulars as her campaign managers. She had connections to get free air time on Fox News. She had everything. Frazier dropped out and certainly Buck considered it…but for less than a day.

Buck, on a shoestring, made the race about the insider against the outsider. The have nots against the haves. It worked. It worked so well Norton attempted to regain momentum by declaring Buck the insider. Problem with that is she reasonably flaunted that which had proven to be so important in the past. CONNECTIONS. What is that saying about the genie… can’t be put back in the bottle.

Norton raised a million dollars that first quarter. Buck raised a paltry $40,000.00. If that is not evidence of the state putting out the word to party faithfuls, then no evidence would convince people otherwise. The next quarter Norton raised $800,000.00 Buck well he raised $100,000.00 with an added $100,000.00 personal loan to his campaign. Ken has never been to Washington or Alexandria for a fundraiser. His fundraising consisted of small individual donations from people who believed and wanted a changing of the guard.

My wife howled when I gave $500.00. You would have thought I was sending us into our own personal recession. That is a lot of money to a cop and his family. It is certainly felt, unlike those max donors who can pull five crisp hundreds from their wallet and still have walk around money. Me, I still have not been able to get my wife to give me a 5 dollar bill as walk around money. She has not said how long before I can start getting my feel good five! I digress.

Buck’s campaign certainly benefited from PACs, hell it may have been his salvation, but I think not. I personally think the negative tone of the one ad buy was not helpful.

Ross Kaminsky of Peoples Press Collection mentions the poor campaigns of Buck and Norton, I wholeheartedly disagree. Buck had a staff of four at the beginning, I believe. There were no overnights at five star hotels while on the campaign trail. There were no overnights period. This was a campaign with no money but a tremendous amount of talent at the helm and a hard working candidate with a spouse who could run circles around him.

All the while Buck had tremendous respect in Northern Colorado where he had established a record as a DA that made good on a promise and delivered the unimaginable. A drop in crime by something like 40%. Greeley is infamous for two things, the smell and gang violence. That has all changed now. Greeley was the fastest growing metro area in the United States (and people have the audacity to claim he increased his budget). People in this part of the state will tell you it was a great investment. This part of the state became Buck’s base followed closely behind by that great Republican bastion in El Paso.

My personal opinion is Norton did not turn negative because Buck had disparaged her in any underhanded way. I believe Norton turned negative as she was indignant that Buck had the momentum and it was not supposed to work that way. She had everything, it was just not supposed to be that way.

Buck lacked everything a candidate for such a high office was deemed necessary by those in the know, or so it was written. But what is written does not take into account heart. Not only a candidate’s heart but the volunteers who believe and work for him as if their paycheck depended on it. But you see there were no paychecks. These are volunteers. Some have called them shills. I prefer the term dedicated. Paid staff is not necessarily a guarantee of dedication. Although Ken’s small staff is dedicated, we see them at every event. Ask the volunteers about the level of commitment and dedication of Ken‘s staff.

And then there is the guy at the helm—The guy at the helm, (who once worked on Abe Lincoln’s campaign) stated: “I have never seen a candidate do so much with so little.”

Buck was fortunate enough to attract Erick Erickson’s attention and endorsement early on. That was followed by Senator DeMint. Today FreedomWorks had endorsed Ken Buck.

Let me wrap this up by saying Buck is getting hammered on a mistake, yes a mistake he made 10 years ago. He released the records. He was willing, perhaps reluctantly, but who would not be. We all have closets that contain history we are not proud of. Some people like me have two closets. I don’t fear people seeing what is in my closet as I will neither run nor accept …….anyway.

A portion of that reprimand in Suthers hand has been widely publicized. But the rest of the memo speaks to the mitigation brought about by Ken’s excellent service to the citizens. One small indiscretion….it was not a crime as some would have you believe, but did the case go forward? You bet. The end result; the defendant was such a bad actor he received ONE DAY OF PROBATION. When Buck becomes a Senator they will use his campaign, deftly steered by that veteran from the Lincoln Douglas debates at the helm, as the template for campaigns.

Hat tip to Ross Kaminsky. We disagree on this race and the events but you have to admit Ross has heart and shoots straight.

This is hilarious. Right when Norton’s campaign appears to have put the finishing touches on their demise they are once again victimized by their own wickedness.

As some may recall the Norton campaign sent out a strongly worded mass emailing (May 11th) accusing Americans for Job Security of supporting Ken Buck and Blanche Lincoln!

Dear Fellow Coloradan, What do Ken Buck and a liberal southern Senator who saved Obamacare have in common?

A lot it turns out.

Obviously the poorly contrived email required the Norton camp to believe Republican voters are gullible and/or ignorant.

“But here is the kicker: the same Good Ol’ Boys group supporting Ken Buck here in Colorado is simultaneously spending even more to reelect incumbent Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln-the liberal who provided the deciding vote to make Obamacare the law of the land.”

Well, well, well.  Today the Norton campaign proudly announced the endorsement of the United States Chamber of Commerce. That had to be such a proud moment for them until they realized…. In keeping with typical Norton blunders fate has a certain fondness of seeking her out with unenviable frequency.

It seems that the United States Chamber of Commerce endorsed Blanche Lincoln on April 30th.

But a Chamber spokesman, J.P. Fielder, pointed out that the organization endorsed Ms. Lincoln in 2004, when she last ran for re-election. He described the current ad as “a significant buy” that “will run for an extended period.”

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/…

Americans for Job Security did not endorse Blanche Lincoln as claimed by Norton. However they provided money in an ad buy to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary.

But, Norton has some explaining to do.  US Chamber of Commerce not only bought an ad buy but endorsed Blanche Lincoln (yet again).  US Chamber must think Norton and Lincoln are like two peas in a pod.  Who am I to argue with the US Chamber of Commerce?

I wonder if Norton’s campaign wants to do a small retraction, or are they going to continue to trust their instinct that the Republican voters are gullible and/or ignorant?  I recommend they do a retraction. This portion of the email would be a great place to start:

 

“It’s contemptible, and it’s true. Ken Buck’s friends at Americans for Job Security are so committed to the cause of limited government and fiscal discipline that they are spending more than a million dollars to help reelect a liberal Democrat who voted for Obamacare, the Obama stimulus bill, the bank bailout, and fiscally reckless legislation that increased the national debt ceiling to trillions.”

Norton and the rest of her campaign staff have developed quite the fall back position.  They can all find work as comedy writers! Why I bet they would win the “Audacity of Hypocrisy Award”. Certainly the closing on their mass emailing is now appropriate for those gullible and/or ignorant Republicans Norton is trying to reach with this closing line of her email:

 

“First, contribute to the Jane Norton for Colorado campaign online. Your gift of $25, $50, or $100 will help send the message to Ken Buck, Blanche Lincoln, and their Washington cronies that big spending and bailouts are bad for Colorado, bad for Arkansas, and bad for the United States of America.”

I would guess Ken Buck is counting on Republicans to prove to Norton that she underestimated their intellect.  

“Ken Buck’s friends at Americans for Job Security deserve the Audacity of Hypocrisy Award. Even as they spend briefcases full of cash to boost the reelection efforts of “Princess Bailout” in Arkansas, they have the audacity to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars praising Ken Buck for opposing those same bailouts.”
 

Jane “The Insider” Norton makes her way down the aisle toward the ring. Surrounded by an entourage of party elites, women in furs, and men with tailored suits.  The crowd erupts into polite applause.  Ken “No legs” Buck makes his way to the ring sparsely surrounded by his family and some guy dressed in a West Point cadet’s uniform.  He is greeted by a tune played on a flute and a snare drum.

Ladieeees and Gentleeeeeeeman!

In this corner, wearing the pink elephant trunks, Jane “The Insider” Norton former Lt. Governor of Colorado.  She arrives with all the “musts.” Chosen  by McCain, Cornyn, and the NRSC. Her backers include former Colorado GOP power brokers Owens and Brown.  Her trunks are adorned with gaudy accoutrements made possible by an astonishing $500,000.00 raised in the first 16 days of her campaign.  Norton is promoted by her brother-in-law, the most influential Washington lobbyist, Charlie Black.  Norton is managed by Norm Cummings, former chief of staff for the Republican National Committee.

Her opponent,  Kevin….I mean… Ken “No Legs” Buck. He is wearing the denim trunks. Buck has the body of a Princeton tight end….well, at least the body of  a Princeton punter.  Buck has the support of …… uh….well…his wife  Perry and….oh yeah…his kids.  Buck is the Weld County District Attorney…..Weld County District Attorney?  Buck’s followers include……include…..Cinamon, anyone?  Josh, can you think of someone?  Kevin ….I mean Ken, is managed by Walt Klein who has  managed,  excuse me,  not managed, but is rumored to have at least worked on the campaigns of such GOP luminaries as Abe Lincoln and  Theodore Roosevelt.  

Round 1:
Norton flaunts her being recruited by the Washington elites. She tells the Denver Post she talked to McCain before deciding to enter the race. Buck is caught off guard by his opponent and her inside abilities. He takes several shots. Bucks unfamiliar and awkward style of being an outside slugger is somewhat confusing to Norton the consummate inside fighter but she easily takes the first round.
Round 2:
Norton arrives at the GOP Central committee meeting in Keystone along with Ken Buck. A straw poll is conducted and Norton pulls 1/3 of the votes. 2/3 of the votes are split among Buck and other challengers. Norton  is referred to as the front runner by the national media.  Buck is receiving attention from the weekly papers in Kiowa, Julesburg, Lamar, and Limon.
Judges give the round to Norton.
Round 3:
Norton out raises Buck 10 to 1.  Norton changes shoes to elephant pink, to coordinate with her trunks.  Buck seems distracted by the audience. His attention is on gabbing with those closest to the ring.  This round goes to Norton.
Round 4:
Buck comes out swinging and squeaks out a victory in the GOP precinct caucus straw polls. Donald Johnson yells out from the crowd: “Buck has no legs.”  (Perhaps not the legs of a tight end, but give him a break he was a punter!)  
Judges score this round for Buck.
Round 5:
Buck refreshes himself prior to the start of the round. He is drinking ice tea with a splash of lemonade, aptly named “The Senator.”  (Get it? Ice Tea as in Tea Party. Lemonade as in if given lemons make lemonade) Norton drinks Dom Perignon. (Nothing to get.)  Norton is dazed from the DeMint endorsement of Buck. It certainly left a mark. Cheri Ofner yells out from the crowd:  ”Buck didn’t even go to Princeton….Wyoming doesn’t even have a law school !”  Ofner is shouted down by the Buckoids.
Judges give Buck the round.
Round 6:
Norton does not come out for the round. She claims she is preparing for a different opponent. She is not interested in Buck.  The crowd boos and begins chanting ” Buck….Buck….Buck.”  Norton exasperated, fires her manager and replaces Cummings with Penry.  
Judges give round to Buck by default.
Round 7:
With Penry giving instructions to Norton to start hitting below the belt, Buck takes a couple shots to the groin.  The crowd boos and seem disgusted by these tactics.
Norton loses round to Buck by penalty.
Round 8:
Palin arrives in Colorado, ostensibly to come to the pink elephant’s rescue.  Buck is seen talking to some guy wearing a costume from the revolutionary war.  Palin looks at the crowd, several wearing the 3 corner hat she is accustomed to seeing lately.  She stays for this round and leaves without comment.
Judges give the round to Buck.
Round 9:
Norton is pummeled by the Magellan poll showing Buck with a 10 point lead by likely Republican voters.  Buck is staying outside of Norton’s vaunted inside strategy. Norton tries to fight from the outside but alas all her training has been about “the inside”.   Norton takes time for a photo-op with Rubio and Toomey who leave with pockets of Charlie Black type money. Rubio and Toomey leave before the round ends.
This round easily goes to Buck.
Round 10:
The round begins with a fifes and drums contingent playing Yankee Doodle Dandy.  John Cornyn, the crowd has been told will be arriving soon to assist in Norton’s corner. Buck appears relaxed and confident. Norton, not so much.  The Denver Post/Channel 9 poll comes out with Buck leading Norton 53 to 37 percent of likely Republican voters.  Norton is down for the count!  The bell sounds, saving Norton for another round.  Penry yells at Norton as she is assisted to the corner.  ”You have got to stay on the outside!  

Yankee Doodle went to town a riding on a pony…..