Skip to content

Norton campaign shows desperation

July 26, 2010

I would write “hysterical” but then I might be called sexist.

On Sunday night I received a campaign email from the Norton campaign entitled ” KEN BUCK TRASHES TEA PARTIERS: Buck Dishes Out More Profanity, This Time at Tea Parties.” It begins,

Today, Ken Buck was caught on tape again. After spending the week explaining his high heels comments, today Ken Buck is explaining why he said he was “sick of Tea Partiers.”

The reference is to a Denver Post article by Alison Sherry. I urge you to read the article because you will discover that what the Norton email says is not at all what is reported in the Denver Post.

First of all, Ken was not caught on tape today: this is old news. The tape was gathered surreptitiously by a Democratic operative (the Post’s words) on June 11.

Second, the phrase “sick of Tea Partiers” appears nowhere in the article or in the barely audible tape that accompanies it. So while the Norton email puts the phrase in quotes as if he said it, in fact he did not not.

Two lies in the first two sentences.

Again, do read the Post article. It makes clear that what Buck is complaining about is people asking questions about Obama’s birth certificate.  He doesn’t believe it is an issue worth exploring. Does Jane? Does her criticism of him imply that she is a “birther?” I don’t really think so. The more serious question is the ethics of the Democrat operative secretly taping someone and then a fellow Republican using it to distort Buck’s image.

The email goes on to raise the “high heels” comment again, saying that he

…trashes the roughly 50 percent of voters who wear high heels.

Did I suggest you read the whole Post article? When you do, you will see that the whole context of that comment was a contrast between his opponent, who wears high heels, and himself, who wears cowboy boots with dirt on them. In context, the meaning is clear: he’s a hands-on, hard working guy while his opponent is not. If his opponent were a man, I expect he might have used the term “wing tips” or some other phrase for dress shoes. While one might or might not agree with the comparison, it is hardly sexist.

Does the email mean to imply that 50% of the voters are executive types who wear high heels? Maybe in Jane’s world, not in mine. There has been a lot of dirt thrown at Ken lately–I’d be surprised if there weren’t mud on his boots. And what about those shoes, Jane: would they be Pradas?

Ken–and all candidates these days–must be constantly on their guard. There are no unguarded moments, there is precious little time to relax. The establishment is desperate to hold on to power and will stop at nothing to keep it. They would do well to remember 1 Peter 5:8

Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

  1. Alexandra permalink
    July 26, 2010 9:48 am

    The fact that the Norton/Buck campaign nonsense made O’Reilly’s stupid things of the week list is just plain embarassing and sad. Conservatives and more specifically Republicans in Colorado are their own worst enemy. Our bloggers often tear apart all our candidates, and we fight, squabble, and sling mud amoungst ourselves so much that we are going to gift wrap this election for the Liberals. This is made even more pathetic when it is a year that should by all rights be a cake walk for conservative candidates. It makes me sick to my stomach. Heres a new concept……why not tell voters why your guy/gal is the better rather than tear apart the other conservative candidate.

  2. July 26, 2010 10:10 am

    What a concept! I agree. As I wrote yesterday, the Buck campaign is taking the high road and criticizing the Norton’s policy positions, not her character.

    After all this negativity, I’m beginning to question her character–or at least her choice of campaign staff and strategy.

    The fact is, people on the one hand decry negative campaigning as we do, yet–as one long-term activist told me–it “works.” Only when people stop supporting candidates who engage in this behaviour will they stop it.

    Further, people like O’Reilly who are only peripherally engaged tend to treat both sides as if they’re doing the same thing–to be “fair.” That’s often not the case and so the person slinging the mud ironically makes the person being trashed look bad too. A sorry mess indeed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: