Young energetically anti-big government PPC blogger Ari Armstrong, like many Coloradans, wanted to get straight what Norton meant this week when she said the Obama administration jobs bill was “too small,” a response that suggested longtime government employee Norton was advancing a government solution to the jobs crisis. Armstrong didn’t get hold of Norton; he got hold of her spokesman Nate Strauch. Suffice it to say, Armstrong got the better of Strauch in the exchange which, given what he has had to deal with week to week as Norton drops bombs at small gatherings across the state, is to say nothing against Strauch.
What Norton meant to say, explained Strauch, was that she would cut taxes to small businesses!
Armstrong appreciated the late-game sloganeering but didn’t really buy it as a policy stand. He also joined the chorus of writers mocking Norton’s commitment to communication with the people she aims to represent.
I called up Norton’s office while conducting research for an upcoming column I’m writing with my dad for Grand Junction’s Free Press. Nate Strauch, Norton’s Press Secretary, said that what Norton meant was that “the impact was too small, not the price-tag was too small.”
But that implies that she did favor some sort of jobs bill, just one with a larger impact, does it not?
Strauch said “she supported a number of different measures,” such as “suspending the payroll tax for small businesses.” So Norton wants to cut taxes without touching spending levels? That’s not much of a policy.
Does Norton plan to answer the Armstrong Survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10? Strauch said there are “a number of surveys in the queue right now and we are working through those.”
Would I be horribly misunderstood if I called Norton’s commitment to a timely response “too small?”
Here’s Norton on Fox News, saying the Obama jobs bill is just too small, a sentiment with which many serious economic analysts agree and one she seems to genuinely believe– and one she has left Strauch to run away from as best he can.