CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 20, 2010 06:02 PM UTC

Perils of the Fringe, Ken Buck Edition

  • 67 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

New York Times editorial today:

For months, it has been clear that Republican Congressional candidates would benefit from independent voters’ dissatisfaction with President Obama. With the Republican field now largely in place, all voters might want to take a close look at who those candidates are.

The party has nominated so many at the far right of the spectrum, as well as some other unusual choices – Linda McMahon, the candidate for the United States Senate in Connecticut made millions running the sex-and-violence spectacle known as World Wrestling Entertainment – that the Republican brand is barely recognizable…

The Times goes on to list a few examples of extreme GOP candidates who risk severely damaging that “Republican brand”–Sharron Angle of Nevada, Rand Paul of Kentucky, both of whom we have discussed in this space. But the Times’ #1 example of a Republican “out of touch with mainstream American values?” Ken Buck, of the great state of Colorado:

Ken Buck, the United States Senate nominee in Colorado. A former district attorney, he has said that the separation of church and state is too strictly enforced and wants to eliminate the Energy and Education Departments. Until recently, he supported repealing the 17th Amendment, which provides for direct election of senators. In the primary, he said he should win because “I do not wear high heels” – his opponent was a woman. As a federal prosecutor, he was reprimanded by a United States attorney after he gave information about the weakness of a case against gun dealers to the defense.

We get the feeling that Buck would prefer to not be listed in such company, as his attempts to run to the center after his primary victory last week have demonstrated. His campaign is becoming aware of the danger. As we said a few days ago, it’s not at all unusual for candidates to run to the more ideological side of their party’s platform during a primary, and to retreat from that stridency to appeal to the broader electorate. But we have maintained consistently that many Republicans this year have gone considerably beyond the usual limits of this approach, and won’t be able to walk back their more extreme public positions easily. As a growing chorus in the media has warned recently, these primary victors, if pegged as ‘extremists’ by the general electorate, could significantly undermine the success Republicans broadly anticipate in this year’s elections.

Unfortunately for Buck, Colorado’s long and contentious primary landed him at the top of the list–and he joins Sharron Angle as a poster child for exactly what Democrats want to run against.

Tweet
Share

Comments

67 thoughts on “Perils of the Fringe, Ken Buck Edition”

  1. this continued emphasis on the “high heels” remark is disgusting.

    He meant it as a joke. It was a lighthearted quip.

    The NYT and others should stay serious and not lower themselves to this silly level.

    1. I thought at the time that it was was the worst form of lowbrow sexist pandering, and I still do.

      We apologize for such things far too much in our culture. It is very deeply embedded.

    2. There is little room for fun or light hearted humor in campaigns anymore. Case in point: David Sirota’s lengthy criticism of Hick’s shower ad yesterday.

      http://coloradopols.com/diary/…

      I have some serious issues with Buck’s take on the issues but on the “high heels” joke, I agree with you.

      1. Sirota is just trying to pull Hick to the left …. but Hick don’t need the help. He is a liberal leftist.

        He wants a 1% tax on business for art.

        He wants to plant trees with your tax dollars — who’s going to water these trees or pay for the water.

        He won’t get out of the way of business, he is Obama Jr., he wants to be at the table.

        Look at all the government going on in Denver, then look at the results … DPS 50%+ dropout rate.

        Won’t back his own public safety director – right or wrong he won’t back the process and calls in the FBI.

        Oh to be a short order cook at the cherry cricket………….

        1. New Deal, WPA, rural electrification, the TVA, and all those munitions jobs and paychecks to the military.  No problem there, eh?

          “All the government going on in Denver…” and this glib comment supports the 50% drop out rate?

          No wonder some peg you “Libertard.”

    3. all the other comments against Buck as it is unfair.  Did The NY Times mention his stance against abortion in the case of rape or incest?  That seems way out of the mainstream as well.

    4. George Allen’s ‘macaca’ moment in Virginia in ’06 was meant as a joke too. That doesn’t make it okay, and it doesn’t make it go away.

  2. the right or left and then tacking back toward middle and running to flat out crazy.  With an increasingly crazy fringe primary electorate choosing R candidates, Dems may not do as badly as the common wisdom says they will. Dems in Colorado stand to benefit. In Nevada, Reid was considered toast, a guy any decent R candidate could beat in this climate. Now, courtesy of the R base, he has a much better chance of retaining his seat. This could be a much more interesting midterm than initially predicted thanks to a shrinking and increasingly wacky GOP base.

    In my block alone I know of half a dozen voters who used to be R and are now unafilliated, no longer participating in primaries. They are the type who would have supported more traditional pro-business socially moderate R candidates in primaries with broader purple state appeal. I don’t imagine them going for Buck or Maes over Bennet and Hick the way most of them went for the bland Coffman over the usual unknown D for congress.  

  3. That was Jane Norton and Buck disagreed with her on it, though he did call for sizable cutbacks.

      As a person who wouldn’t be unhappy to see the Dept of ed abolished I had a discussion with BJWilson on the point.  Colopols had criticized Norton for saying abolishing the department would save money — a rather dumb criticizsm because it obviously would save money, though perhaps not huge sums, if the department was eliminated and the programs converted into block grants, reducing federal red tape (my main objective) and overhead ( secondary benefit.)

      But the point is that Norton, not Buck, called for the abolition of the Dept. of Ed.  If anyone can cite a Buck quote abolishing it, fire away.  Beej assured me that he didn’t want to abolish it but only to rein in some of its excesses — a very different position than what the Times now claims.

    1. I believe he called for reducing the money going to the federal Dept of Education and instead have those dollars go direct to the school districts. So it was repurposing who controlled the dollars.

      1. In short, he did NOT call for abolishing the department.  Norton did.  I happen to strongly agree with the notion of repurposing the programs and moving control to locals.  Federal red tape often costs local districts more than its worth.  But that’s hardly a radical right position.  The sainted Pat Schroeder herself voted against creating the Depart. of Ed.

        1. and I’m betting it is, and even though they failed to mention his extreme anti-abortion stance which will probably lead him to support the egg as person amendment, etc., you must admit his past support of the repeal of the 17th and comments about not strictly enforcing the constitutional ban on the state getting involved with religion still illustrate the NYT’s point. He’s also said that social security is horrble bad policy and he’s not sure whether it’s constitutional or not. That’s kind of extreme for most.

          While the 17th dust up will likely fail to catch on anywhere evn with the tea party crowd with, being forced to repeat support for the most extreme anti-abortion stance will only play well with those who wouldn’t vote for any Dem anyway. The egg amendment was beaten by something like 4 to 1 last time, wasn’t it?

          He may also be forced to say things that don’t play well with moderates in defense of allowing more state sponsorship of religion by which we all know that crowd means their version of Christianity.  He’ll no doubt be confronted with his social security views in attempts to show him as too extreme on that for seniors, great voters.    

          The high heel thing is exactly the sort of nothing thing the media grabs, though. We here know it was a specific sarcastic response to a specific Norton taunt. Even though that’s been explained over and over the media prefer the huge sexist gaffe story.  So nice and simple.

          1. NYT screws up on Dept. of Ed, making him more extreme (in their eyes) than he is.  But they blow even more in ignoring the opinion that children raped or impregnated through incest will be required to bring those fetuses to term.  I doubt that he will endorse the eggs are people amendment because if he hasn’t already, there’s no point — Lord knows, those whackos will never vote for pro choice Bennet and he’s already shown he wants to at least appear to move to the middle.

              Again, agreed that the high heels thing is just his dumbass reply to a dumbass Norton taunt but yes, it’s the kind of thing the MSM likes to focuses on because it’s much easier than doing any real work or research.

    2. I don’t recall Buck saying he wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. Eliminating the Department of Energy and not supporting the 17th Amendment should be enough to make him seem out of touch.

      I’m surprised the article didn’t mention his  view that there shouldn’t be abortions even in the cases of incest, rape or if the mother’s life is in danger.  That’s also pretty far right and out of touch with mainstream america.  

      1. Buck didn’t say he wanted to “eliminate” the Dept of Energy, either. He has called for examining whether the DOE is doing what it was supposed to do when it was created, and if not, figure out how to fix that.

    4. Show me where Ken Buck has ever said he favors abolishing the Department of Education.  If you cannot do that, stop saying it.  Repeating a lie, over and over, still doesn’t make it true.

      BTW, I’d love to see it gone.  It has done nothing but dumb down education since Jimmy Carter established it as a union payoff.

      1. I do not have time for your fucking stupidity today, marilou.

        Here you go.

        Bull.

        He’s full of what he claims is on his boots.

        In February, at the Teller Tea Party’s Senate forum, he flat out called for its elimination, along with the NEA.

           When asked what government programs the candidates would cut because funding them violates the U.S. Constitution, most agreed to eliminate the Department of Education.

           Buck said that the Department of Education and National Endowment of the Arts could be scratched pronto.

           “We can immediately flip the switch and end them,” declared Buck. “There are other programs that are going to take some time, like student loans, to get rid of.”

        Why backpedal towards the middle when this is precisely why your base voted for you over Norton?

        “The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris.” Ralphie

        by: Middle of the Road @ Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 14:54:46 PM MDT

        [ Reply ]

        2. Your source for that?  

          I have heard Ken Buck explicitly mention cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts, Humanities.  I have also specifically heard him NOT recommend shutting down the Department of Education. That was Jane Norton.  She later tempered her position by bringing up the block grants idea.  

          Repeating your lie from Club for Growth’s error still doesn’t make it true.

      2. I notice you’re commenting a lot about “credibility,” but you’ve ignored this comment:

        http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

        Where Buck is quoted:

        When asked what government programs the candidates would cut because funding them violates the U.S. Constitution, most agreed to eliminate the Department of Education.

        Buck said that the Department of Education and National Endowment of the Arts could be scratched pronto.

        “We can immediately flip the switch and end them,” declared Buck. “There are other programs that are going to take some time, like student loans, to get rid of.”

        And the link: http://coloradostatesman.com/c…

        H/T: MotR

        Can you explain why you continue to comment on other threads about “no credibility” after you saw this? You commented right after it.

        1. I will inquire.  I initially saw Buck early on at a single-candidate forum with questions from the group.  That is not what he said.  I will check further.  Not everything in someone’s print is the truth, ya’ know?

          BTW, not everyone reads your messages first.

          1. Clearly, you are reaching out to me with an apology and contrition and I accept, of course. I’m sure you’re a charmer in real life.

  4. “So far Right you are Right of Reality.”

    We have to look at all the polls, I will refrain from posting the litany of them here, that clearly indicate a dissatisfaction with our current state of political affairs. Taking the margin of error in consideration, some polls suggest America’s confidence in politics or government may be near zero.

    But will the Buck n’ Bennet show be an answer?

    Nope, far from it. Neither have any connection to the “common guy.” One sees the world from the eyes of a DA, “black and white,” while the other sees the world from “far far away” where only zillionaires roam high above the common folk.

    Clearly, Buck has a national spotlight, and I thought it might actual help him, until I started up and down the hill, up and down the middle aisle of what I call the true “fifth estate,” and the message is the same, he’s now coming across as not only a loose cannon, but one who had aligned with the far reaches of the political galaxy to gain support and outside money of influence and is now attempting to waffle back to what we use to call the “Republican Party.”

    Ain’t gonna happen, his staunches supporters now feel “used”, and those who would have supported him now feel “distrust..and maybe even disgust.”

    So far all the comments, affirm this, it calls to attention, one’s “true intentions” when they shift around the “slippery slope” of changing viewpoints to please factions or repositioning political rhetoric once everyone including their brothers and sisters heard what you just said, over and over and over on the campaign trial (trial not trail worded intentionally).

    You know, I don’t personally know, Mr. Buck, I never met him, never heard him speak publicly, so I guess I am not a good one to judge his character. However, I might be able to suggest what may be happening here, from my own personal perspective, be it wrong or right, I will share this with you.

    I went to DU law school, in fact Andy Romanoff was right behind me when we were in the line to get our law degrees. So we all study “Constitutional Law.” I am NOT a lawyer, however, I know several Prosecutors, some very personally, and I have had the personal experience of watching them grow from the first day on the job and onward.

    When you see, day after day, case after case, a series of people who are either “Criminals” or “Victims” you begin to change. You struggle to not, but its the way of the beast. You see things plainly in these terms of “Black and White.” I really don’t know if anyone ever written or studied this, so if you are a prosecutor chime in, heck if you are a lawyer jump right in.

    You also tend to see goals as tasks, prizes to be won, the competition to win is fierce. So where do we lose the perspective of where you came from, who you represent, when it is clouded by the position you wish to attain, such as the US Senate.

    Again, our rule of law, our Constitution,and our system we hold dear, always allows us to challenge and to argue, I agree that is what America is about. You can call everything but the kitchen sink, “Unconsitutional” we all know that, but does this make any sense?

    When everyone, what I call the “true fifth estate,” is thinking the same, that they are mad, pissed off, its easy for someone running for say the , US Senate to say, “Yes Yes” I am against all of it, its all wrong, “Unconstitutional,” and even stray to saying

    things you wish you could take back, but you can’t. But, here’s what happens, no one forgets, they can’t they have become political cynics. They will dislike you for it. They already distrust, disrespect and some even turn simply away from the politcal we have here today.

    Mr. Buck is here, I hope him the best, seriously, I just can’t see the Buck n’ Bennet going anywhere. Maybe, they need to just lay low and hope the 200 thousand or so voters will get out for them. I don’t see that happening.

    1. “… his staunches supporters now feel “used”, and those who would have supported him now feel ‘distrust..and maybe even disgust.'”

      Huh?  Where do you get that?  I’m a staunch supporter and I don’t feel used.  This is the first time in years I’ve actively supported anyone.  In fact, I give regularly.  

      “You know, I don’t personally know, Mr. Buck, I never met him, never heard him speak publicly, so I guess I am not a good one to judge his character.”

      You should go hear Ken Buck speak and make an attempt to meet him and talk to him.  He is nothing like you surmise.

       

  5.  In 1986, he was hired by then-congressman Dick Cheney to work on the Iran-Contra Investigation.

    Isn’t this asking the fox to investigate the chicken coop?

    1. Buck was part of  the Iran Contra fake investigation (aka cover up)?  No way.

      You know I luv ya Ray, but I’m gonna need a citation for that one.

        1. Sept 11 is a “hallowed” date. It is completely inappropriate to be politicking on Sept 11 of any year.

          Club 20 19 is clearly a terrorist organization if they are encouraging politicking on this most “hallowed” of dates on the American-Super-Patriot-Calender™.

          Shame on you, marilou, for promoting this dastardly event. Shame.

        1. at spreading the message that he had to, just had to, vote for Obamacare, bailouts, and other Pelosi-Obama specials so he could beat AR in the primary.

          THIS MAN NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS IN NOVEMBER

  8. I won’t push the interview up until I complete the interview with Senator Bennet (to be fair to Senator Bennet). But I don’t think framing Ken Buck as a right-wing crazy is going to work.

    I do look forward to the campaign between Bennet & Buck because I think it will be substantive with clear differences.

    1. to whether Buck supports the death penalty for those involved with an abortion caused by rape or incest.  He thinks it’s murder of a fetus, and he believes murderers should get the death penalty.  If that’s his position, then that sounds like a right-wing crazy to me.

      If you didn’t get a definitive answer to that question, then you might as well keep your interview to yourself, because you have been played like a fiddle.

      1. instead of nitpicking people apart.  Does  Americans dying in foreign countries bother you? How about a growing multi-trillion dollar deficit?.  Does it bother you that the tax rate for the lowest income Americans is going to increase by 50% on January 1?  If none of that bothers you, how about Obama sitting in on your prostate exams?  Get used to the idea, honey.

        Find something of value.

            1. Lets be real,Marilou,Aristotle, MADCO. et al.

              We took the fight to the Taliban, we continue to do so today. I always stand on the ground that we need to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan today, Counter-insurgency (COIN) will and has worked! This is based on what the Generals are saying, whoops I mean what they have said.

              Instead, we need to push fully into helping Pakistan today, they need us, and we really need to show what we are really about.

              We can continue to suppress and destroy the Taliban, that is our mission. We have plenty to assist the democratic elected governments in both countries. We can do this without troops in harm’s way.

              I refer to numerous studies by Brookings Institute for my statistical data I base this on. http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx  also for Afghanistan.

              How long did it take to exit Saigon? After November, we will still be in Iraq, our soldiers will be in harms way, our sons, daughters, husbands and wives with families will continue to die, enough is enough.

              I really don’t want to sound medieval, but supplementing the paid mercenaries under contract may be a better cost benefit to us in the long run.  

              We have to honor those who served and support those who have fallen, their families, most of all those who returned.

              1. One Steve Harvey sidles off to the great beyond, and another one sprouts up in his place.

                Welcome Charlie, have you had any opportunity to get acquainted with the “Beej”?

  10. I did an interview with a fellow from Tennessee, enjoy open dialog, and of course I am open to any debate with the Buck n’ Bennet, if they show.

    (twiddle)

    If I extend another challenge they wont show, they wont respond, why should they, right?

    How about on milk crates in the middle aisle on 16th Street Mall? I will supply the crates or we can stand on the benches, oh I I already did that minus the crates. If you won’t take the time to walk the middle of the mall and talk to all the “homeless,” what good are you?

    The only image they see is, someone fixed against the Rockies, occasionally with family, or wearing a shirt with the sleeves rolled up, muttering “let them eat cake.”

    And for the rest of the nation they do not think one candidate is A-Maes-ing or the other is Buck-in the party, instead they are painting a different picture.

    I will be at the Old Fashion Political Debate in Loveland, but of course I am open to any fair exchange and treatment anywhere, any media, radio, TV, middle of the street or whatever. I hope you all know that, that some time to engage me.

    I agree with the “high heels,” remarks as being Dragged on to long.

    Btw, BlueCat has a correct observation, on both sides of the fence the parties are fractured, severely I believe. To a point that an “Unaffiliated” will stand as Colorado’s next US Senator.

    1. To a point that an “Unaffiliated” will stand as Colorado’s next US Senator.

      Uh huh. I’d be willing to put some money on that prediction. Care to wager $100 on your daydream?

      Delusions of grander are not attractive characteristics in a candidate.  

      1. Real grassroots is about the toe-to-toe, face-to-face, eye-to-eye on the issue thats keeping you up at night. Its not a prediction, its not even a delusions of grander, I will leave that to others who seek to buy the Senate or care only about the position of the Senate. Not me.

        For me, its about fighting to “Stop the Insanity.”

        For many of the people of Colorado, the “Unaffiliated” voter is about what made our forefathers come to America. It was about free choice and independent free thinking. I am on the ballot representing the free choice option, thats all.

        But back to our forefathers coming to America, it wasn’t about religious persecution, taxation without representation or even enclosures or the unavailability of free land, nope, it was about something more. Its called “vision.”

        Manifest destiny, the “vision” and belief that God allowed us to drive our nation to an understanding that we were a people of the enlightenment age, those who held up to what we call “American Exceptionalism.” Sure, it might have been someone daydream, but that dream was not what was part of the “Vision,” and a daydream is fleeting, instead its what we are all about.

        The greater things that makes our nation great and precious. Those things articulated in our Declaration of Independence and codified in our Constitution and yes all of our amendments. Its the liberties we fight for and our fathers and their fathers fought and died for.

        If you are a REP or a DEM and you don’t have these core values, these traditional values the soul of America, what the hell are you doing here? It’s not about party bickering and division. I guess you don’t get it.

        We need to “Stop the Insanity,” the two parties will not do this, neither will either of those put forward by the parties, how can they?

        Maybe, you need to do what I do everyday, engage the youth, even if they are not of voting age, ask them what they think?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

204 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!