U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 23, 2010 11:04 PM UTC
36 Comments
more conservative but without tin foil hat?
This is much more informative than the interview conducted by David “Neville” Thielen. David allowed Buck to speak in platitudes without demanding policy specifics. Your analysis tells us how Buck would actually vote. And, it illustrates why Buck is endorsed by the Tea Party and the Club for Growth. This is the information that Colorado voters need to make their choice.
think it’s less a matter of Neville-like appeasement on Dave’s part and more a matter of being too nice to do particularly useful interviewing. Dave functions more as a conduit for the same stuff you could get from candidate press releases, no sentient middle man required, bless his tail wagging puppy dog heart.
There is more of the detail you want in the recording. It’s just that if I wrote out every single word that was said the interview would be so long no one would read it. So I summarized.
Also, you generally won’t get any candidate you dislike phrasing things the way you want – because they see that issue differently.
as a hard hitting journalist, Dave. Since you yourself have often explained why that’s not what your interviews are about, there doesn’t even seem to be much of a disagreement here. Unless you disagree that you are a very nice interviewer?
In any case, the format of this diary does do a much better job of delineating Buck’s positions than does your interview and in a very cut to the chase, easy to use fashion. It doesn’t give us a window into Buck’s soul but I’m much more concerned with the way he would likely vote than with the feeling I might get gazing into his eyes and trying to gauge his sincerity and niceness quotient.
And no, not disagreeing. Just that that there are more details in the recording. And on a lot of this stuff we each have to make a guess as to what a candidate will do in the future. A lot of the time I don’t think even they know for sure.
I listened to much of your interview and you did a fine job of transcribing Buck’s vacuous answers. He did not provide any additional details, particularly on how to stimulate the economy and provide jobs. You did try to point out that without demand for goods/services there is no need to create new jobs. He provided the circular answer that without new jobs there is no demand. Completely useless answer to those suffering in this economy. So, there is no need for anyone to waste their time listening to the recorded interview.
You walked into this interview totally uninformed about Buck’s positions, or unwilling to raise them. You asked these broad questions like, “What’s the biggest problem facing the country today?” and got played by a GOP politician for the pansy that you are. You should have should have asked questions about the positions he’s taken; e.g., “You’ve said that Social Security is horrible policy that will bankrupt the nation. So, what’s your proposal?” Or, “You say that the government should not subsidize student loans. So, what happens to students that need those loans to go to school?” Were you even aware of his positions??
Bottom line: You squandered an opportunity to educate us about the real Ken Buck. Pols taught us a lot in a little chart.
He wouldn’t be able to fill half an article with My $0.02
But my dogs love me.
Skip and Jazzy.
Each one came with his/her name.
two rescue dachshunds. Maguffin used to be called samson, but he’s the lead dog and my wife renamed him maguffin because that’s what Hitchcock called a plot device that moves the plot along. Love those dogs.
We’re his fourth family.
The other was adopted about five months ago from a guy who was foreclosed on and had to move and couldn’t keep pets. He was living in his place with no electricity or water at the time.
She misses him, but she’s mellowing out as time goes on.
The answer is that he does not have an answer to this problem. No politician is going to say “hey I have no idea” so this is the best you get. But it is clear that his only specific for the recession is loose credit for small business.
.
how ’bout putting the conservative running for Guv, Tom Tancredo, up there in the chart ?
.
It’s “extreme” to think that Social Security will financially bankrupt the country.
It’s “extreme” to support private sector college loans over those administered by the government.
And, it’s “extreme” to believe that some court decisions on church and state may be a little too restrictive.
Interesting.
1. There is no factual basis to say social security will bankrupt the nation. If the raise the salary cap to match the COLA increases in payments it should last forever.
2. The government administered student loans cost us less. But it is fair for you to say you prefer to pay more taxes to have student loans go through private companies – but be honest about the additional cost.
3. Nope, that is an area where we will always be discussing the right balance.
i suspect that Hiker, and Buck< think that the govt has no place in the student loan market. The old way was the worst of both worlds: Govt guarantees for private financial markets. Logically it makes sense for either (a) the fed has no role in student loans, or (b) the govt takes over the program. (b) is cheaper and makes loans available to more students, but I can see where small-govt conservatives think the govt has no role here.
When the feds took over the student loan program, they added another 0.5% to pay toward nationalized health care. Maybe that will offset that $60 billion a year in Medicare waste and fraud.
It is extreme to assume the feds can do anything better and more efficiently than private industry except probably, national defense.
guaranteed by the government were a massive ripoff of studentrs and taxpayers alike.
and still no link or citation?
Come on Marilou, I told you earlier that I thought you pulled that out of the bottom of one of little Beejey’s diapers.
It’s time to either put up some evidence, or flush that turd you’ve been waving about.
Is that Dan Maes does support the federal government where it directly helps individuals. That’s probably due to the difference in their backgrounds, Maes probably has close family members who found student loans, social security, etc. to be a lifesaver.
this is what gets me about some politicians (well, people in general I guess). If they don’t know someone who has benefited, then they think no one should get it. Why can’t people imagine that some people might benefit from any given public policy? Why shouldn’t the government help people get educations, for instance? Or not go bankrupt obtaining healthcare? So many politicians just listen to people like them, and forget that there are other people out there in different circumstances.
Get off your duff and take care of yourself. Why should the government take care of you or anybody else?
you never have to choose between health care and housing because you lost your job. Even those of us with college educations, who have worked our whole lives, are not immune to the impacts of the bad economy.
I thought it was simply sarcasm.Then I saw who wrote it. What a world you live in where only effort matters.
I guess then, marilou, that you don’t think jobs is an issue. And, how do you like the Imam getting off his duff to get the cultural center built?
Suppose the government stops paying unemployment benefits? Let’s say unemployment is at 10%. How many businesses do you know that would not be in deep shit if 10% of their customers suddenly disappeared?
What do you think the people who get unemployment benefits are doing with that money? They spend it. All of it. They’re not building a nest egg, because it’s just barely enough (if at all) to cover their necessities.
Programs like unemployment insurance aren’t just to protect the unemployed — they protect everybody, because in an economy like ours, everybody depends on everybody else. The longer it takes to process an unemployment check, the longer it takes to get that money back out into the marketplace. And who suffers then? Not just the unemployed, but the businesses that depend on their customers.
If you get robbed, don’t call the police you whiner.
If your house is on fire, don’t call the fire department you wimp.
If you need to drive somewhere, don’t you dare use the road you parasite.
You people who depend on the government make me sick.
(To the totally clueless like marilou the above is sarcasm.)
the biggest knock on Dan Maes is that he’s a blithering idiot, not that he’s conservative.
As we said, we assumed Maes would have come out more to the right than Buck on this comparison, because the things he gets press for are pretty extreme (the UN bike thing, for example). We were frankly surprised that he didn’t. You could say that Maes is actually more moderate than Buck.
Why aren’t Hickenlooper and Bennet on there too?
Thanks.