think “McCain”. She was, after all, recruited by him. People don’t vote for “government lite” when they can vote for the real thing. In fact, I can’t really distinguish much difference between her and Bennet, other than that she would have supported the GOP establishment and he wouldn’t.

The only thing I can think of as to why you would support Norton is that Buck is more socially conservative than her. In that case, perhaps your objectivist viewpoint was the reason. But then Peak Pols was wrong to describe you as a conservative.

You don’t even have the slightest inkling of what the Dems would have done to Norton had she won the nomination. She was a weak candidate, and her campaign would have collapsed overnight. We needed a fighter.

If you are really libertarian, then I can’t understand why you would have gone with the establishment backed Norton instead of the Tea Party backed Buck. Libertarians generally don’t support higher taxes. They also don’t usually go for (perceived) “electability” over principle.

We are suffering right now because of Jane Norton; that is a fact. She started the dishonest narratives that the Dems used to eke out a victory, and she did little to nothing to support Buck when he won the primary. Had she spoke up in his defense we would probably have Ken Buck as senator right now. No doubt Buck would have done the same for her, regardless of the feelings of his supporters. Let’s be very clear about this: Norton would have gotten nowhere close to 50% of the vote.

with PPC and Ross, and its not a major issue, is that their focus is too much on national politics. We complain and complain about the Fab Four and “The Blueprint”, but the best conservative blogs in the state are focused on national issues about 3/4 of the time. That’s why the Peak and Complete Colorado have been so great to step up and fill the void. The liberals, for their part, have more than filled in the past decade or so with the “Independent,” Pols, ProgressNow, Fiscal Policy Center, Bell PC, etc etc.

I found, as you might have read in my interviews of her, Jane Norton to be down-the-line conservative. Those people who tagged her with supporting Ref-C were being intentionally obtuse.

Beyond that, my primary argument for Norton is that she’d be likely to win where Ken Buck would be less likely because the liberals would have a much easier time making Ken look bad.

I think I was proven absolutely right.

As for me being conservative, that’s actually not a word I apply to myself; Peak applied it to me.  I consider myself much more libertarian, though toward the conservative wing of libertarian. And more precisely, I think I’m closer to Objectivist than to libertarian.

Finally, I think it’s a pretty weak argument for those who opposed Norton (and therefore me in that case) to suggest that I’m some sort of “establishmentarian” (a word which actually has a very different meaning than how Mr. Wilson used it). In the couple of cases where I saw a policy difference between Buck and Norton, I actually preferred Buck (such as re: Afghanistan). But I really really really wanted to beat Michael Bennet and I thought Jane was more than conservative enough and more than qualified enough for the job.

So those people who attacked Norton because she worked for a guy who was supporting Ref C and therefore got the reelection of Bennet got exactly what they/you deserve. Too bad the rest of us had to suffer for your narrow thinking and your jumping to conclusions.

Nice interview.

Colorado Peak Politics is basically run by the Colorado Republican Party, just as ColoraoPols is basically run by the Colorado Democratic Party (through ProgessNow).  Both blogs are nothing but mouthpieces for the establishment party lines.  They are just two actors in the same kabuki theater. They serve essentially the same oligarchs, except that one blog pays lip service to the “left” while the other blog pays lip service to the “right.”  … The whole thing is like one big professional wrestling production.

“Partisan”, not necessarily “conservative”