Jane Norton Won't Run For Senate

The Denver Post ^ | March 16, 2004 | Karen Crummy

[Clintonfatigued]

Schaffer, Salazar in, Norton out.

[Clintonfatigued]

PING!

[ConservativeMan55]

Who is Jane Norton, and who is the other guy?

[Theodore R.]

I think the poster is speaking of Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, who, as I understand it, is an abortion supporter.

[JTG]

No. He's talking about the Lt. Gov of Colorado, Jane Norton. I don't think she's an abortion rights supporter.

[Clintonfatigued]

Jane Norton is the Lieutenant Governor. Bob Schaffer is a former Congressman and the likely nominee. While Scaffer is a man of integrity, he is not really a first-tier candidate. Why Republicans have been forced to settle for him is a mystery to me. Salazar starts out with the edge in this race. Fortunately, that could change in the coming months. Colorado leans Republican, but not heavily so.

[Theodore R.]

Oh, I did not know that CO had a second Norton. I though the leadership had settled on Schaffer. Are the leaders having second thoughts?

[A.A. Cunningham]

Norton

[JTG]

I don't know. I wouldn't vote for the Repub or the Dem in that state, because there would probably be a Libertarian candidate, but if I were advising the Colorado Republicans, I would not be happy. The best thing that could have happened to them would have been for Diana DeGette to run. She could be beaten easily in a state like Colorado. Salazar is a much tougher candidate, but he can be beaten.

I know one thing. It's good for Republicans that Tancredo is not going to be the nominee. I don't think he could win statewide.

My prediction: Schaffer is the nominee, and Schaffer beats Salazar, 52-48. It will be almost as close a race as the 2002 Allard-Strickland race was.

[WOSG]

"I wouldn't vote for the Repub or the Dem in that state, because there would probably be a Libertarian candidate, "

Aw great, so when the Democrat beats the Repub by 500 votes, we'll know who to hold responsible.

[JTG]

Yeah, except I don't live in Colorado, I live in New York. Notice that I said in "that state", not in "my state".

I don't have to worry about "voting my conscience" this year either, and voting Libertarian, because if Bush wins NY, Kerry is getting blown out.

I know that Kerry will beat Bush by at least 15 here, and that Bush will beat Kerry by at least 20 in Texas. They are just facts of life.

Besides, my vote has never belonged to the Republicans. I've never been a Republican, and never a Democrat. Always an independent. So if I have never voted Republican, it's not like you've lost my vote. You just haven't gained it.

[JTG]

Let me help you out.

Maybe if Republicans were still the party of Barry Goldwater, and the party of limited government, or at LEAST smaller government, then I might consider voting for them. But they aren't. Even Ronald Reagan never CUT the size of the federal budget. He may have cut the growth rate of the federal budget, but he certainly did not cut it. The federal budget has grown for decades, under both Republicans and Democrats.

Here's one thing I liked about the 90s. Republicans were opposing Clinton, and holding down the size of government. Government grew much slower during the 90s than it is growing now.

But now, with Republicans in control of all 3 houses, Democrats are more than willing to go along with Bush on his spending requests. Bush said he wants X dollars for something, and the Democrats say, "ok, we just have to add a few more billion dollars to that proposal." NO! 95% of the programs in the budget aren't authorized in the constitution.

The only congressional Republican that I would ever vote for would be Ron Paul, and I don't live in his congressional district.

You know why 100 million people don't vote? Democrats would like you to believe that it's because the Democratic party isn't LEFT enough for them, and that all of those people are raging commies. That's not the case.

The reason that those 100 million people don't vote is because they ALL want smaller government, and they don't see either party equipped to give it to them. Ask any person, EVEN most Democrats, if they want smaller government. I guarantee you, 9 out of 10 will say, YES!

Rest assured, that my congressional Republican won re-election in 2002 with 74% of the vote, and has no chance of losing.

Likewise, my Democratic state rep wins re-election handily every time, and my Republican state senator wins re-election handily every time.

I'm voting the way I want to vote, and I don't have a nasty taste in my mouth when I step out of the voting booth. I don't feel like I voted for the lesser of two evils.

The lesser of two evils is STILL evil.

Ok, I'm done ranting. For now. :~)

[WOSG]

"So if I have never voted Republican, it's not like you've lost my vote. You just haven't gained it."

It's not *my* vote to gain or lose. Rather it is your vote to decide if your 'conscience' supports acting in ways that harms the cause of freedom overall.


It's basic political strategy - unity is strength, winning requires coalition building. So voting LP is an act of vanity without a viable coalition being built; you are free to do it but it does nothing to advance freedom. The only sensible thing for freedom-lovers to do is to act in the Republican party and to move the party and support it in the gen'l election. (Now at least in New York, you could be smart and endorse good Republicans running and non-endorse the worst ones, and show your strength that way.)

After the Libertarians did enough damage to Slade Gorton to make that moron democrat (Patty Murray) senator in a razor-thin race that cost the Republicans the senate majority in 2000, I get antsy when LP is brought up in senate races. Every vote counts!

[WOSG]

I feel your pain, buddy. :-)

Here's where you need to go IMHO:

http://www.rlc.org/
"The Ron Paul Republicans"

As I was telling a fellow conservative after our disaster here in Texas when the 'establishment' knocked off two good conservatives in judicial races, "I can handle our enemies, It's our "friends" in the Republican party I need help with!"

More helpful advice: We need guys like you running in primaries against RINOs up in New York. Put our RINO Republicans on notice. It's why I support Toomey over Specter.

[JTG]

There are no good Republican candidates or office holders in NY.

Look at who my governor is. George "RINO" Pataki. The guy is an even bigger gun grabber than Mario Cuomo was, if that's possible. He supports every new federal budget program that the Assembly Democrats vote on, and he even requests more money for them.

In 2002, Pataki ran well to the left of his Democratic opponent, and picked up the support of the largest gay rightgs group in NY, along with the support of the state health care workers union.

I will NEVER vote for Pataki. I voted for Golisano, because Golisano was the man, and because he has successfully run a business. He had good ideas, and while I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, he was a hell of a lot better than Pataki or McCall.

Let's look at my Congressman, Jim Walsh. Jim Walsh has never met a government program he didn't like. Sure, he's a social conservative, but I don't really care about those issues. He's mediocre on gun rights, because he voted for the Brady Bill and all that junk. He is also a big protectionist.

The other local Congresspeople are HUGE RINOs. Houghton and Boehlert. Those two guys in the bordering congressional districts have to be two of the most liberal Republicans ever to sit in those hallowed halls. Reynolds is the ONLY local Republican who is halfway decent, and I don't like him. There are hardly any Democratic reps up here except Slaughter and Hinchey, and they're pretty much entrenched in their districts.

I know that the LP probably won't ever win the governorship fo NY or a Senate seat. But neither will the Republicans. And as for the congressional districts, they are so gerrymandered, as are the state legislative districts. The Democrats have held the Assembly since 1974, the Republicans have held the Democrats since 1938.

To sum up, there really is NO difference here between most Republicans and Democrats, here, friend. :(

[JTG]

The Democrats have held the Assembly since 1974, the Republicans have held the Democrats since 1938.
Erm, I meant that the Republicans have held the Senate since 1974. Although I'm sure the Republicans would love to cuddle with the Democrats. They're just best of friends.

[JTG]

Here's my problem with the RLC:

None of them are for smaller government except Ron Paul. Toomey and Flake can SOMETIMES be counted on to vote against big appropriations bills, but most of the time they tow the Republican party's line. Certainly Hayworth is not for smaller government.

Toomey is definitely better than Specter, but he is not for smaller government. He is for slowing the rate of government growth, at best.

As for me running against the RINOs, I would never be like Ron Paul and become a Republican. I would have to vote for Hastert for speaker like he does, and I couldn't do that, because I am a Libertarian. I say this consigned to the fact that I most likely could not win a congressional election as a Libertarian. Oh well.