Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Jane Norton and Ken Buck: High Heels vs. Cowboy Boots in Colorado

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
DENVER -- Let us take a brief break from the racism debate and talk about high heels.

And sexism.

We'll start with a one-liner:

What's the difference between the two GOP Senate candidates in Colorado?

High heels, according to the man in the race, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. He's running against former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in the Aug 10 primary. Appointed Sen. Michael Bennet faces former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff on the Democratic side, but they're not arguing about footwear. Yet.

Ken Buck, Jane NortonSaturday, Buck made a stop at the annual Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms event held by the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank. The event involves what its name implies -- drinking booze, smoking cigars and shooting guns out on the Colorado plains. It's for sure no formal affair, but it's for sure a gathering of conservatives.

So Buck stopped by. And as always these days, so did folks with video cameras, in this instance filming for the People's Press Collective, a conservative citizen journalism site. Buck told the crowd he wouldn't offer his stump speech, but would just take questions.

The first one came from a woman, who asked, "Why should we vote for you?"

"Because I do not wear high heels," replied Buck to guffaws and groans in the background. "She has questioned my manhood, and I think it's fair to respond. I have cowboy boots, they have real bullshit on them. And that's Weld County bullshit, not Washington, D.C., bullshit." (Click play below for video.)


Maybe Buck didn't get the memo about this being the year of the woman?

Many -- including Norton's spokeswoman -- are comparing this to George Allen's "macaca" remark aimed at a tracker for an opponent's campaign in Virginia's U.S. Senate race four years ago.

"Ken is going to have to use all of his best lawyer-speak to explain this really stupid statement," said Norton spokeswoman Cinamon Watson in an e-mail. "He may say it's no big deal, but just ask . . . George Allen what a comment like this can do to a statewide race."

Allen's cratered campaign was run by Dick Wadhams, now the Colorado GOP chairman, who's got plenty of problems in the governor's race and doesn't need a footwear debate, let alone a battle of the sexes on the Senate front.

It's true that Jane Norton said in a recent ad, noting attack ads paid for by outside groups, "You'd think Ken'd be man enough to do it himself." Click play below to watch the ad:


But Buck might also want to check out recent attempts to attack South Carolina's Nikki Haley and Georgia's Karen Handel, each of whom is seeking to be governor of her state.

Both Republicans received endorsements from former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Haley won in a runoff despite accusations of adultery. Handel garnered the most votes in Tuesday's primary but faces a runoff with Nathan Deal, who recently cited "real women" who supported him.

Norton is widely considered the party insiders' candidate, while Tea Party people favor Buck, who's pulled ahead of Norton in some polls.

Late Wednesday, Buck's campaign issued a release calling the high-heel issue "another desperate smear" by Norton.

And they cited an interview Norton did last week with the Independence Institute's Jon Caldara. According to the Buck news release, "Caldera asked Norton, 'What is the crucial difference between the DA from Weld County, Ken Buck, and the former lieutenant governor?' Jane responded, 'Well, I'm a girl first.' Caldera asked, 'Is being a girl important in this race?' Norton replied, 'No, it isn't. I was trying to be funny, but it didn't go well.' "

No, none of it's going well. Buck better hope the ultimate "mama grizzly," Sarah Palin, doesn't step in to defend her sister. Because we've seen how that goes in South Carolina and Georgia.

There are plenty of reasons for mud-slinging out there -- administrative budgets, abortion, heavy-hitting supporters.

But, people, when it comes to high heels vs. cowboy boots, please don't play this game.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

5 Comments

Filter by:
EndDaze

These politicians never have solutions to problems when campaigning, just downgrading each other....I must say, Jane would look fine wearing cowboy boots but Ken Buck in high heels? Not so much.

July 22 2010 at 9:44 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
bthered

Ken Buck is a "TEA Party" Darling.....You need to visit Colordo Springs, Colorado, the most Conserative City in America. You will then see the TEA Party mind set in action...They are turning off the street lights, laying off the police, closing the swimming pools, stopping maintence on the parks and the very first thing you will notice is that filling chuck holes with used tea bags is not working. You should also know that this city is surrounded by 6 major military bases.

July 22 2010 at 7:13 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
hoss9009

Either one of them will give voters the option of "Hate vs. Have" in the general election.

July 22 2010 at 2:27 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
ojibwawife

Well, I moved back to Colorado to get away from the DC bull and found more of it right in my backyard. I've been watching the candidates on both side and I have to tell you I wouldn't vote for either one of these people. Neither one of them have taken the time to address the ISSUES. It's all about their appearance, their GENDER, their SHOES.......what about the PEOPLE OF COLORADO and JOBS and HEALTH COVERAGE and the ECONOMY, WE STILL HAVE TWO WARS GOING? WHAT ABOUT BIG OIL AND IT'S DESIRE TO TAKE OVER THE WESTERN SLOPE OF COLORADO? Tell me what are your stands? I'm not even interested anymore in their answers at this point. I'm going to the other side and chose between those two, since they at least are speaking to the issues (at least more than these two!)

July 22 2010 at 1:41 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
terrybrede

We need to start focusing on thier platforms and what they think on the issues at hand instead of some comments made. There is always mudslinging and negatives during campaignes. Look at the way they vote what they stand for. I am sick of this having to walk on eggshells about everything we say. There is not one person that at some point in their lives say something that is going to offend someone. Get back to voting for how they are going to represent us!

July 22 2010 at 1:19 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily


  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>