Immediately after the special elections earlier this month, a nationwide conference call of conservative activists across the country was held. The call was put on by RedState.com founder Erick Erickson and Sen. Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund. Thousands of activists participated and the main agenda was getting feedback on which U.S. Senate primaries the group and allied groups should be looking at. The Colorado race was near the top of the list.
It appears that something might actually be coming out of that conference call. Today, the Ken Buck for U.S. Senate campaign is reporting that the Senate Conservatives Fund is looking for feedback from Colorado residents and is encouraging Coloradoans to send messages of support to the group. This would seem to indicate that the Senate Conservatives Fund is edging close to direct intervention in the Colorado senate primary or is at least close to deciding whether to endorse Buck or Tom Wiens.
If the Senate Conservatives Fund becomes involved on behalf of Tom Wiens or Ken Buck, you can bet that other organizations such as the Club for Growth will follow suit. These are the same groups that are boosting Marco Rubio's campaign in Florida and could wipe out Jane Norton's fundraising advantage if they choose.
UPDATE: The Wiens campaign is now urging supporters to contact the Senate Conservatives Fund as well.
For general inquiries, tips, and blogroll requests; please email: info@rockymountainright.com
Comments
Norton, McInnis & TABOR
As I have said in other venues, I will not support any Republican in Colorado that does not support TABOR. Both McInnis and Norton have their finger prints all over a poll that supposedly shows Republicans in Colorado no longer support TABOR. I believe that to be the furthest thing from the truth. I am tired of the party bringing forward candidates that are nothing more than Democrat Lite. McInnis and Norton represent what is wrong with the party, not the future of the party. If they are the future, then my future lies with a conservative third-party.
PS - I added McInnis' name to dispell any notion that this is some kind of anti-female rant. I'd vote for Marget Thatcher if given half the chance. So don't bother going there. Prove to me that Norton, et al are true conservatives and stop with all the strawman (-woman) arguments.
On the contrary
Could you show us where JN is on record touting the poll you're talking about? Have you ever met her or looked at her official position on issues? She is incredibly conservative. She doesn't have a voting record, but look at the folks she has personally backed and look at those that have endorsed her. They include many that the Toomey's, Chocola's, and DeMint's of the cause listen to.
Many here are upset about DC dictating what goes on here. That's a valid concern based on some actual events. But making up your mind that Norton is not a conservative seems misguided without anything more than a "supposed" poll to base it upon.
it's about taxes
She is a liberal republican because she supports raising our taxes. She thinks gov't can do better with your money than you can.
Newt endorsed Scozzafava
Newt endorsed Scozzafava in NY-23. That is the last thing I will say about political endorsements, they're worthless as far as I'm concerned.
One of the many sources for the "supposed" poll: http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/1020
Your GIS skills are lacking. I'll grant that compared to Bennet, Norton is more conservative, but that isn't saying much. However, given her association with McInnis, as well as the national GOP's failure at leadership of late, I no longer consider her to be "one of us" in a political sense. She, like McInnis, represents the McCain/Bush/Powell faction of the party in my estimation. Sadly, people like yourself that defend her without doing basic research, while pointing your finger at others, just makes me even more suspicious of her candidacy.
Dear sad and suspicious
I agree that endorsements don't make anything absolute. But in total they can give color to a particular candidacy.
I appreciate the link - though the ties to Norton seem to be barely there. I guess "basic research" is defined by the user. I wouldn't call rumors based on 2nd & 3rd degree sources as "basic research." Senate Watch seems like a well respected blogger, but his/her opinion doesn't count as research. I'll just have to leave it at that...
I've done the research
The people that give jane money are the same people giving to Dede Scozzafava (liberal), Lindsey Graham (liberal), Mark Udall (liberal), Olympia Snowe (liberal), etc.
The Oxbow mining corp has given money to Udall, Bennet, and Norton. They also want to keep their monopoly on CO resources and stop the creation of new jobs in Colorado. Do they believe Norton will be complicit in this? They must!
The bottom line is Judy Black (jane's sister) and Charlie Black (jane's brother in law) are the #1 and #2 fundraisers for John McCain and John Cornyn (the #1 and #2 members of the NRSC). The whole thing stinks. She is NO conservative republican and she will divide the vote.
Are you sure?
You may be able to accuse some GOP leaders of selling out some or all the time. But it's tough to make a credible argument that ALL significant past & present GOP leaders are sell-outs. She's got a long list of well credentialed conservative leaders. Bill Armstrong, who is very influential at CFG, is among them.
I agree that we shouldn't have our nominees chosen in DC. But I don't think DC support and Colorado support have to be mutually exclusive either. If she meets the standard of conservative and Republican fundamentals - we shouldn't NOT like her just because 'DC' does too. I believe she meets those standards. It's been rare lately that we here get a candidate that is both conservative and electable - let's not prematurely submarine our chances.
Colorado is not Florida
In Florida, Gov. Christ clearly is not a real economic conservative. He wants the world to subsidize homeowners insurance for people who build and buy homes in the paths of hurricanes.
In Colorado, Jane Norton is as conservative as any of the other candidates. Only time will tell whether she's a better politicians. A few knuckle heads in Washington won't decide whether Coloradans vote for or against her. They're free to put up their money, but it's hypocritical for those who whine about the support Norton is getting from Washington to now push for conservative groups to back her opponents.
I only care about what the conservatives are trying to do because I think it looks like a bunch of misogynists are making a bad mistake that could cost the CO GOP a Senate seat it should win. I'm not convinced these so-called conservatives are any more conservative than Norton or I am.
If you want to run against Norton's Washington fundraising fine. Everybody raises money in Washington and out of state. Those who don't should not be in politics.
Running against contributions by lobbyists like, say, the Club for Growth, may win you some votes. But if a bunch of anti-female, anti-Hispanic so-called conservatives gang up on the only woman in a CO primary, expect the Democrats to take you to the cleaners.
I don't have a candidate in this race. But I'm offended when a bunch of misogynists use flimsy excuses like Norton's support of Referendum C to cover up the real reasons they oppose her.
If I'm wrong about the misogyny, I'm sorry. But that's how it looks to me and how it will look to a lot of other people.
What a mistake this would be
I don't support any of the CO GOP candidates for U.S. Senate in the nominaton process. I want one of them to win in 2010.
But Senate Watch, who has posted here several times, needs to say who he or she is before I will believe that this is not a setup by someone on the paid or volunteer staff of another candidate. The pattern on posts by Senate Watch is very clear. He's anti-Norton. Period. But if Senate Watch is a Colorado Conservative activist who is leading the national conservative activists to a bad decision that will cost Republicans the 2010 election, he or she needs to come out and become accountable. Cowardice is unbecoming.
From the beginning, Senate watch has shown all the characteristics of someone who doesn't like Jane Norton's soft voice or just is afraid that she will get the nomination instead of Senate Watch or his/her candidate.
Dirty pool, I'm thinking. And I'm offended enough by your dirty tricks, Senate Watch, to call you out.
Uh-huh
No, I'm not the one "leading" anyone into getting involved in the race. You're correct that I dislike Norton, just like many of the other conservative bloggers in the state.
Though how is this post a dirty trick, or even anti-Norton? If I wanted to go after Norton I could have put up that story from the other day about all the lobbyists backing her, or I could have put a direct link to where people could tell the Senate Conservatives Fund to back Wiens or Buck. No, I didn't do any of that. I just pointed out what these groups were doing.
Quite frankly, if I'm going to get accused of "misogyny" for simply pointing out what is going on behind the scenes in the primary maybe I should start getting really negative on Norton. Hell, if I'm going to get accused of being a misogynist and all sorts of nonesense when I'm not even doing anything, maybe I should give you something to really complain about.
Are you serious?
Do you honestly believe that people don't like Jane Norton because she's a woman? I'm sure that's news to all of the female conservative activists backing Buck and Wiens. If you're not bothered by Referendum C, that's fine. But by calling it a "flimsy excuse" not to support Norton you're showing the same kind of arrogance towards how many conservative activists feel that has been costing Norton support and has put her in this very position.
Having said that, your anger towards this post is sorely misdirected. There was no commentary towards Norton on the part of the author and he was simply reporting what the Buck campaign, Erick Erickson, and the Senate Conservatives Fund are doing. If you want to be pissed off about this, take it up with them.
Maybe you're right; I'm giving you my gut reaction
I'm giving you my gut reaction. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But I don't think i"m alone on this. I am worried that the "conservative activists" are begging for defeat for the GOP and doing everything to ensure that defeat. That bothers me a lot, and I will continue to so blog.