Ken Buck: Pro-life extremist

Note: This diary was revised after it’s initial publication. I took my opponents’ legitimate objections to heart and made some corrections.

************************************************************************************************************************************  

In a recent interview by Colorado Pols blogger David Thielen, CO Senate Republican candidate Ken Buck reiterates his statement that he does not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.

Thielen’s interview quotes Buck as saying:

Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.

Mr. Buck is running for a seat in the United States Senate, not for president of his church. The interview with Thielen discusses his plans if elected Legislator at the highest level in our nation’s capitol. Building a home for unwed mothers (if that is what he is referring to here) is a noble endeavor as a pastime or hobby for the average person, but does mentioning it in this interview constitute a policy proposal — one that addresses taking away the right to medical self-determination for just over half of the US population?

Buck says he is not running on the issue of abortion. Can voters trust someone who praises tea-partiers for their support, and is not afraid to say such misogynistic things as people should vote for him because he is “not wearing high heels”? What Buck’s supporters are not admitting is that a US Senate seat is for six years, and a great deal can happen in even a year. Remember a few years ago when people said, “Health care reform will never pass. America is not ready for it”? Here we are, less than six months after the largest health care reform legislation ever.  

Imagine for a moment, if you will, what could happen if Ken Buck went back on his word to blogger  David Thielen, and chose to vote his conscience and the teachings of his faith. Imagine other anti-choice candidates like Buck being elected in 2010, as well. In fact, that is precisely what the right-wing extremists are trying to do. What would Buck and the tea-partiers offer in place of legal pregnancy terminations to women and young girls who have been raped?  

Would Buck suggest these women hide away to have their babies in shame the way they did in earlier generations in our nation’s history? Should they go away from their homes to “care for a sick Aunt in another city” the way many women did three-quarters of a century ago?

Would the pregnancy facilities he says he supports be like homeless shelters, only for pregnant women thrown out of their homes with no income and no one to help them? If that is the case, would they need to become pregnant first to qualify?

Would these pregnancy centers (camps? dormitories? homes? institutions? villages? projects?) house women against their will to make sure they did not terminate their pregnancies?

What about divorced or abandoned mothers who have other children? Who would pay their mortgages, feed their children, send them to school, clothe them, help them with their homework, and raise them, while their mothers would be away at “pregnancy camp,” especially if Dad is already a dead-beat?  

What about children who are raped or molested by an uncle or cousin or neighbor or stepfather? Would they be forced to leave school, their families, and all they knew to go to these “pregnancy centers?

Who would pay for these pregnancy facilities — the medical bills, the counseling bills, the guardians, the overhead? Would there be tutors available for the underage women who are missing school?

Would Ken Buck support increasing taxes to finance these facilities?

Who would raise all of the babies of twelve and thirteen year old girls who are raped or molested, if their options were taken away? Would Mr. Buck find homes for all of their infants?

Would all of the pregnant females who have their babies in pregnancy centers go home immediately after giving birth? What if there was no home to go back to when they were no longer pregnant?

Anti-abortion candidates like Buck must answer tough questions like these if they are to quell our fears, or publicly denounce the desire to challenge Roe vs. Wade. I invite Mr. Buck to tell us more about these “places for pregnant women” he supports, or to come up with a realistic plan to address the consequences of such radical legislative policies. Colorado voters need to listen carefully to his response, and think about what could potentially happen to their wives and daughters and sisters and nieces and mothers, if Mr. Buck and people like him got their way. Real lives of real women, and other family members are at stake here.

Incidentally, I have not historically been an outspoken champion for abortion. As a mother of three children, I have felt genuinely conflicted on this issue. There was a time in my life I may have even agreed with Mr. Buck. After many years of observing people, however, I’ve discovered that loving babies sometimes means preventing their birth to people who do not have the resources to care for them adequately.

I look forward to someday becoming a grandmother, but not anytime soon. I’ve raised my children to be responsible and conscientious. I hope and pray my family will never be faced with such a decision, but as an educated woman and as a voter, I must stay informed, and always be on guard against those who wish to pry into other families’ private decisions.

I applaud Mr. Buck for his interest in community service, if the “effort”he mentions is to offer another alternative to safe and legal abortion in his hometown. If Mr. Buck thinks building homes for pregnant women would justify taking away a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, and is suggesting it as a model for public policy, I have grave concerns about his candidacy. Without good alternatives for radical changes, voting for any pro-life candidate for the US Senate is simply too risky, even if he is successful in leading us to believe he would never vote his conscience.

nancycronk

About nancycronk

Nancy Cronk is a longtime community activist and women's leader living in Arapahoe County. Six months before the historic "red sweep" election of 2014, she was recruited to run as a "placeholder" in HD37, and managed to bring in 40K from 500 small donors, and 42% of the vote -- just one point lower than the previous candidate who ran in a presidential year.

108 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

    • ajb says:

      Where will these women go? If all abortion is illegal, then that’s a lot of women.

      Who will pay for it?

      • H-man says:

        People have asked Buck what his view of abortion is.  He has responded.  How has that changed anything?  He is running to be 1 of 100 Senators.  He recognizes that he is in the minority in his view and that he would need to get the public to change its view before he would try to change the law.

        Not all abortion is now illegal.

        Not all abortion would be illegal if Buck was elected.

        In my view, this is all nonsense by the progressive crowd to try to paint Buck as extreme.  He and most Christians disagree with others as to when life begins.  So what?  Nothing is going to change.  To progressives all Christians are extreme.

        • ajb says:

          Conservatives have targeted the judiciary as their means to overturn Roe v. Wade. During the Clinton presidency, they refused to even hold confirmation hearings on his appointees. It worked. When W was inaugurated, he appointed anti-abortion judges. He appointed activist anti-abortion SCOTUS justices.

          Buck can be expected to carry on this strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade. He will vote for every anti-abortion law that comes before him. He will vote to confirm every anti-abortion judge.

          <rant>And get off the fucking self-righteous “all Christians are conservative” bullshit. That’s just fucking insulting. Just because we don’t all believe your political views doesn’t mean we’re not Christians or follow some other faith. </rant>

          • H-man says:

            What I said was “to progressives all Christians are extreme”.

            If believing life begins at conception and therefore is to be protected as most Christian and Catholic doctrine indicate and that view is what is being portrayed as Buck is extreme, it then follows that Christians are extreme to them.

            Did Buck state in David’s interview that he would introduce legislation imposing his view on others?  No.  So the venom he is receiving is because of his religious belief as to when life begins, not any proposed abortion legislation.

            • ajb says:

              To me, and most Americans, that’s extreme.

              http://www.pollingreport.com/a

              “to progressives all Christians are extreme”

              That implies that there are no Christian progressives, does it not?

              And this:

              “If believing life begins at conception and therefore is to be protected as most Christian and Catholic doctrine indicate…”

              I doubt that most Americans believe that life begins at conception, regardless of Church doctrine, especially when confronted with the legal ramifications of putting such belief into law. Thus the last eggmendment was defeated 3-1.

              And my point stands that Buck would vote to restrict or outlaw abortion anytime legislation was proposed and would vote to confirm anti-abortion judges and justices.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              Iknow a lot of Unitarian-Universalist, United Church of Christ, Metro Community Congregations Religious Science, American Baptist, and many other churches that are not extreme.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              Iknow a lot of Unitarian-Universalist, United Church of Christ, Metro Community Congregations Religious Science, American Baptist, and many other churches that are not extreme.

            • ColoDem Di says:

              How about the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches?  How about the United Church of Christ?  They all officially state that they are pro-choice.

              http://rcrc.org/about/members.cfm

              You can drop the “progressives hate Christians” bullshit.  What progressives hate is religious zealots who would impose their religious beliefs, extreme or not, on our entire society.

        • ColoDem Di says:

          What if they used your precious tax dollars to do so?  

          The same people who want to ban abortion are the ones who want to teach abstinence for pregnancy prevention.    

  1. H-man says:

    Thanks for the insight.

    • nancycronknancycronk says:

      would have consequences? Please explain how that makes me a religious bigot, H-man.

      • H-man says:

        You start off by referring to David’s excellent interview of Buck:


        Thielen’s interview quotes Buck as saying:

        Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.

        If I am reading this correctly, Ken Buck intends to personally secure a place for all of the pregnant women who will be forced to carry fetuses to term if his views are adopted. If true, this statement raises many more questions than Thielen answers in his interview.

        You know you are not “reading this correctly” because here is the context of

        Buck’s statement in David’s interview:


        My final question was on abortion. I asked that as we have a wide range of opinion in this country as to at what point a fertilized egg becomes human, and fundamentally this is an opinion or belief, how would he like to see this legislated. Ken replied “I recognize that most Americans disagree with me. And I recognize that the worst laws are laws that a small group tries to impose on a majority.” Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.

        Ken then added “we need to change the hearts and minds of people on abortion before we’re ever going to have a law that is accepted in this country.” Ken brought up the very valid point that he does not duck from the issues so when people ask him his personal opinion on abortion, he tells them what he thinks. But his record of effort is to provide alternatives. He concluded saying this is not an issue he is running on.

        David then wrote about his conclusions in the interview concerning the abortion issue.


        I also want to speak of what Ken Buck is not. He is not a drown the government in a bathtub proponent – he wants to move programs to the states, not end them (although I’m sure he can name some he would end). While he is personally socially conservative, he does not want to impose his social mores on the country

        I find your notion of pregancy camps based on David’s interview decietful and disgusting.  Your small mind can not allow that some people of good faith may disagree with you on when life begins.  Your desparate efforts to get Michael Bennet elected by using this type of pond scum lying suggests you have concluded that he can not win an election honestly by campaigning on what he would do in the Senate.

        As I understand it, Bill Ritter holds views on life similar to Buck’s.  Where exactly are they building these pregnancy camps today?

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          I never indicated my beliefs on abortion, but I can tell you they are not as simplistic and dogmatic as your own, if your posts are an indication.

          Also, I’ve always been a strong supporter of Ritter. I was trained as a core supporter for his re-election campaign, and held an event for it just before he dropped out of the race. I defended him everyday for eighteen months for his pick of Michael Bennet. (You can ask his former campaign staffers, Matt Derrington and Patrick Lane.)

          I am not anti-Catholic, or anti-life. In fact, I have told Ritter to his face one of the reasons I liked Ritter originally, and like Ken Salazar and James Mejia as well, is that they were from huge families.

          I come from a family of nine children myself, having very conservative pro-life parents. I personally think being raised in a huge family has its advantages for future public office — you learn to negotiate, to mediate, to be assertive, and to be compassionate — just by virtue of having so many family members to interact with every day. Don’t believe me? Ask a Kennedy.

          I am not anti-life. I am pro-common sense. Pregnancy requires the consideration of at least two lives — that of the baby or fetus, and that of the mother. Colorado voters need questions answered about the implications for the mother’s lives, as well. You can call me “pro-mother”, if you like.

          If Buck were running for Pope, he would be entitled to his unrealistic approach to family values. Creating legislation would not be his job, judging the ethics of others would be his job. Buck is running for the US Senate however, where his job would be to create legislation that affects real human beings. Or did you forget that, H?

  2. Gray in Mountains says:

    In a reasonable way you raise many of the details that would have to be resolved for Bucky’s solution to have a “prayer”.

    Here’s another: if a pregnant femle is an illegal immigrant will we disallow her deportation to assure delivery of an “anchor baby”? Or, are abortins OK if they are performed in another country? Will all females be tested for pregnancy prior to deportation?

  3. IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

    I’m all for trying to draw reasonable conclusions from the sometimes cryptic answers of politicians, but this is way out of line and nowhere close to reasonable.

    First of all, the quote that you used from David’s article is a paraphrase. He didn’t quote Buck’s exact words, so it’s not fair to hold David’s choice of language against Buck.

    Second, this is taken way out of context. The full passage tell a much different story.

    I asked that as we have a wide range of opinion in this country as to at what point a fertilized egg becomes human, and fundamentally this is an opinion or belief, how would he like to see this legislated. Ken replied “I recognize that most Americans disagree with me. And I recognize that the worst laws are laws that a small group tries to impose on a majority.” Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.

    Ken then added “we need to change the hearts and minds of people on abortion before we’re ever going to have a law that is accepted in this country.”

    The way that reads to me is that he recognizes that his views are extreme and that they are in the minority. He says that he has no intention of legislating this at all (which pretty well destroys the point of your entire article, in which you try to imply that Buck was laying out a legislative plan) and that opinion of the people must be changed before the law itself. That is perfectly reasonable to me.

    Finally, I think that, despite his extreme views, it’s great to hear about a conservative who is doing more than just condemning these women who are forced to make such a difficult choice. There is nothing in the text which implies that Buck is somehow masterminding this project, it’s just something he is helping with. And no where is it implied that he expects you or any other taxpayer to fund it. But I’ll tell you what, if I find out the name of the project, I’ll give money to it in a heart beat.

    From what I know, this sounds like an incredibly noble project which is attempting to offer someone a safe and comfortable alternative to abortion, which in many cases has severe psychological impact on the woman.

    I have often disagreed with your tactics, Nancy, especially your questionable, if not completely dishonest, posts against Romanoff and his supporters (both as yourself or one of your sock puppets), but this is a really despicable ploy.

    You are better than this.

    I don’t support Buck. I don’t support his views on abortion. But if he wants to use his free time for a charitable cause, I say good for him. And shame on you for trying to make that into something dirty.

    You better think long and hard about whether you really want to stain Bennet with filth like this. I assure you, he can win without you, and disgusting posts like this one only hurt him. And there is plenty to criticize about Buck without having to resort to ugly tactics like this one.

    So why don’t you delete this post, like you have so many others. It doesn’t look good on you or your candidate.

    • nancycronknancycronk says:

      I posted under one name for years. When I was outed, I switched to my real name. I even called the owner of Colorado Pols personally, and told him what I was doing. I now post honestly under my real name, just like you, right, “Indy”?

      Second, Ken Buck is running for THE US SENATE, not Governor or Judge or Pope. His views will affect actual legislation. He has been quoted elsewhere saying he would vote to outlaw abortion. http://www.coloradopols.com/di

      Is your hatred of me post-Democratic primary, or your loyalty to Andrew Romanoff, really that strong that you are not curious about the views of an extreme pro-life candidate who wants to write (or at least vote for) actual legislation?

      • Middle of the Road says:

        Your diary does absolutely nothing to further the conversation about Buck’s views on this, particularly his hardcore stance on rape and incest cases. If anything, your diary sets the conversation back and diverts from the discussion many of us are trying to have.

        I find your diary disgusting and counter productive. The use of “labor camps” in your title harkens back to something truly vile that happened 70 years ago and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even making the insinuation.  

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          Your point is well-taken. I confess to being a little more passionate and impulsive about this topic than many of the people (mostly men?) I believe to be here with me.

          During the auto recession and layoffs of the mid- 1980s, I worked at a suicide hotline/crisis center, in Wayne County, MI. I spoke to countless suicidal people who were faced with unwanted pregancies, or who had children they could not afford to feed or clothe after being laid-off. People who had to choose between rent and food for their kids. People who walked to our crisis center in bitter cold, only to be turned away and advised to go sleep on a crate, or loiter at 7-11s until they were kicked out,  because we had no more room. These were people who worked hard, played by the rules, and still lost their jobs, knowing some auto executive somewhere got a bigger bonus that year.

          Few people know this, but when unemployment rates among men rise, child sexual abuse rises, as well. These concerns are not about imaginary people with imaginary problems. These are real people, with real faces — faces with despair that haunt me to this day.

          If challenging the Ken Bucks of this world –candidates who give lip service to right-wing extremists who have never seen real hunger in the eyes of a child — just to increase their political odds, is what I have to do, so be it.

          • H-man says:

            You are making stuff up that you know not to be true.

            How do you know he has never seen hunger in the eyes of a child?  You don’t.  You have a little mental construct you have made about him and are merely going about trying to make up facts to fit neatly inside of it.

            Buck is a social conservative, always has been, always will be.  He has stated that he will not try to impose his social views on others. He is also compassionate and has worked on social problems including unwanted pregnancy.  So you claim he has a plan for forced pregnancy/labor camps?

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              If Buck has done charitable things, have at it. Tell us about those things. I have never heard about any of them. Here’s your opportunity to tell us how he intends to raise hundreds of thousands of infants who will be added to this economy if pro-birthers get their way.

              This quote does not speak to that at all: “the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.”

              This description tells us nothing. What effort? What kind of place(s) is he talking about? One? A dozen? A thousand? For how many pregnant women? Ten, twenty, fifty? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

              Bucks attempt at dismissing his abortion views by helping build a single home for unwed mothers, if that is what you are saying he is talking about (and I have no idea what you are saying) is like the Republicans offering a free box of band-aids to the 45,000 people who died last year because they did not have access to affordable health care.  

          • Middle of the Road says:

            to do with mine so I’ll give this one more shot and then I’m done here.

            I don’t care about your passion or impulsiveness, not when it does more harm than good. Passionate/impulsive pro lifers use that same claim of moral high ground right before they shoot doctors.

            Stick to the facts and leave the blatant references to concentration camps alone. It’s disgusting and Buck’s position on abortion doesn’t need to be twisted. It’s bad enough all by itself.  

          • nancycronknancycronk says:

            My attempt at a clever title using a pun on “labor and delivery” was lame and insensitive. I stand by the rest.  

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          What was your previous blog name, Indy? You continue to address me as if we know each other, but your profile indicates you are a newbie.

          Sounds like you have beefs with other people. I have used two names in years of my blogging history. One is the one my mother gave me. You know the other one, you’ve implied. If you think I have blogged under other names, you and the other Romanoff team members who continue to accuse me of same need to understand you are wrong, and I believe you owe me an apology. I have never hid from anything I’ve written. I do not deserve to be accused of writing something I did not write. I stand by my communications. When I have been wrong, I have apologized freely.

          I did delete a couple of blog diaries where I was outed. It was the only way to get rid of the comments at the time. Both times, I notified the blog owner.

          In regard to Buck’s “incredibly noble project”, where are you getting this from? Thielen’s article says nothing about it. It says there is an “effort”. You can’t get more vague than that. Did I miss another diary?

          • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

            In regard to Buck’s “incredibly noble project”, where are you getting this from? Thielen’s article says nothing about it. It says there is an “effort”. You can’t get more vague than that. Did I miss another diary?

            This whole thing is overly vague. It’s one paragraph out of several pages of interview. And it’s not direct quote. Yet you seem to have no problem spinning that into an elaborate fiction about forced pregnancy camps. I am getting what I think from what was actually written. You are turning a few sentences into a huge thing without any additional information. In other words: you = hypocritical

            Sounds like you have beefs with other people. I have used two names in years of my blogging history. One is the one my mother gave me. You know the other one, you’ve implied. If you think I have blogged under other names, you and the other Romanoff team members who continue to accuse me of same need to understand you are wrong, and I believe you owe me an apology. I have never hid from anything I’ve written. I do not deserve to be accused of writing something I did not write. I stand by my communications. When I have been wrong, I have apologized freely.

            I haven’t accused you of writing anything, except for the trash that is the OP. I don’t owe you anything, much less an apology. But I’m glad to hear you admit that, in addition to your primary name that you write under, you also have an additional account (also known as a sock puppet) that you write from anonymously. In other words, thanks for making yet another one of my points for me.

            What was your previous blog name, Indy? You continue to address me as if we know each other, but your profile indicates you are a newbie.

            I have been reading this and other sites for years, I only started participating a few months ago. The only thing I know about you is what you write here, on facebook, and elsewhere. The reason I know your other name is because you are ridiculously horrible at concealing it. You cross-post articles word for word under your real name on one site and your sock puppet on another, and then act outraged when people notice. The only articles you link to from your facebook are your own, either under your real name or the sock puppet.

            And the sum of all your writing has told me that you will do, literally, anything to help your candidate win, including this despicable defamation. This is dirty. And I really don’t care how you justify it.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              I used to hide behind a blog name, like you are now. Then I was outed three times. Then I contacted the blogowners and told them I might as well switch to my real name. I’ve only blogged under my real name since.

              I’ve never tried hard to conceal my blogger name, but I do think it is important that people are not outed on Pols. I had that right. You have that right. If I chose to post something under that name for my friends on facebook, that was my choice. It was for my friends. If you are still a friend on facebook, PLEASE do me a favor and delete yourself.  

              • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

                Because you can’t stand someone disagreeing with you.

                You might want to find a different use of your time then.

                God forbid someone call themselves your friend (even if only on facebook) if they don’t agree with everything you believe and call you on your self-righteous bullshit like this post.

                Everything about your conduct in this thread is outrageously dishonest. And the sooner you realize that, the better.

                • nancycronknancycronk says:

                  The Tea party people nominate an extremist candidate as their Republican nominee — a guy who does not approve of abortion even under the case of incest or rape. A guy who wants to be Senator but expects us to believe he will never vote to outlaw them because he implied that to David Thielen (yeah, right…).  

                  You fall for it.

                  There are videos of him all over the internet speaking out against abortion, and he thanks the tea party for their support at every meeting.

                  He writes that he is working on an effort to provide some kind of housing for said victims while they are pregnant, but gives no details whatsoever.

                  You decide he is a swell guy for that. (I don’t disagree that charity is a good thing, but not when it is a pathetic replacement for sound public policy.)

                  I challenge the ridiculous idea these poor victims are supposed to be shuttled away to some “holding facility” to gestate, instead of being accorded their rights to their own bodies and their own lives under the Constitution of the United States of America.

                  You have some baggage with me from the Romanoff primary and refer to me with these words:

                  I have often disagreed with your tactics… questionable… completely dishonest posts against Romanoff (there were none, by the way)… your sock puppets (never had any)… this is a really despicable ploy (what ploy?)… you seem to have no problem spinning that into an elaborate fiction…

                  you = hypocritical…you will do, literally, anything to help your candidate win
                  (not true)… despicable defamation… self-righteous bullshit … dishonest

                  You hide behind a anonymous blogger name, discuss on a statewide blog what I say on facebook to personal friends, then accuse me of asking you politely to de-friend me on facebook and leave me alone.

                  Whoever you are, Indy. You are a piece of work. With independents like you fighting Democrats like me, the Republicans can spend all thier time electing people who will take away the rights of every woman we know.  

                  I for one don’t have anymore time to waste on you. I need to focus on defeating candidates who don’t believe in civil rights for every American.  

                  Please step out of the way.

                  • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

                    …on remembering your own position, I can see how maintaining an argument in which you have absolutely no ground to stand on would be tough for you.

                    I challenge the ridiculous idea these poor victims are supposed to be shuttled away to some “holding facility” to gestate, instead of being accorded their rights to their own bodies and their own lives under the Constitution of the United States of America.

                    Challenge it all you want, you seem to be the only one who think this has been proposed.

                    You are either delusional or dishonest.

                    You decide he is a swell guy for that. (I don’t disagree that charity is a good thing, but not when it is a pathetic replacement for sound public policy.)

                    I never said he was a good person. In fact, I explicitly said that I don’t support him. What I did say was that you are a bad person for distorting one of the few good things he seems to be doing in this state.

                    You hide behind a anonymous blogger name, discuss on a statewide blog what I say on facebook to personal friends, then accuse me of asking you politely to de-friend me on facebook and leave me alone.

                    When you post things like this on “a statewide blog”, you have lost the right to be “left alone”. You have chosen to make yourself a public figure and draw attention to yourself and you have chosen to do so without any discernible integrity. You are going to get attention for that and you know it, so please drop the “poor Nancy’s getting picked on” act.

                    Please notice no one coming to your defense. Even the people who agree with your position are embarrassed by your tactics.

                    The Tea party people nominate an extremist candidate as their Republican nominee — a guy who does not approve of abortion even under the case of incest or rape. A guy who wants to be Senator but expects us to believe he will never vote to outlaw them because he implied that to David Thielen (yeah, right…).

                     

                    Yeah, if a vote comes up, he’ll probably vote against women’s rights. But that is not the point of this thread. I wish it was. I would be with you if that’s what we were talking about. But instead, you have chosen to make this about his support for a charity and making it out to be a “labor camp” of some sort and making a lot of intentional allusions to real honest-to-god tragedies in human history.

                    It’s sick.

                    • nancycronknancycronk says:

                      Yeah, if a vote comes up, he’ll probably vote against women’s rights. But that is not the point of this thread. I wish it was. I would be with you if that’s what we were talking about. But instead, you have chosen to make this about his support for a charity

                      My point of this thread (remember, I wrote it?) is to say 1) Ken Buck’s views are too extreme for Colorado, 2) Ken Buck would vote against women’s civil rights, 3) Ken Buck’s lame policy answer to raising children that would be born as a result of taking away a woman’s right to her medical decisions is to build some place for pregnant women.

                      No where in Thielen’s quote does it say he is supporting a charity, nor does it speak to what he does in his spare time. This is Thielen’s quote:

                      Ken then talked about the effort he is involved in to provide a place for pregnant women to stay while they take the baby to term and then keep it or put it up for adoption.

                      You obviously took “effort” to be about his hobbies or past-times, and I took it as a policy statement. The interview was about his run for the United States Senate, was it not?

      • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

        You aren’t significant enough to warrant that reaction from me.

        What in anything that I posted led you to this odd conclusion:

        Is your hatred of me post-Democratic primary, or your loyalty to Andrew Romanoff, really that strong that you are not curious about the views of an extreme pro-life candidate who wants to write (or at least vote for) actual legislation?

        I think that I made it very clear that I don’t support Buck or his position on abortions.

        But you have chosen to concentrate on perhaps the one decent honorable thing that he is doing about that issue and defiling it.

        If you want to talk about his abortion views and how dangerous they are, fine, but that’s not what you’re doing.

        You are telling stories that you have conjured from a short, out-of-context, paraphrased comment that he made.  

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          I would LOVE to read about the “one decent honorable that Ken Buck is doing about the issue”, as you stated above. That is common ground for all of us, I am sure. I would very much enjoy reading a diary like that. Sadly, there isn’t one here.

          • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

            You felt the need to make that point twice. I’ll simply refer you to the above response.

            But in the mean time, can you refer me to the diary that substantiates you claim that:

            Ken Buck believes the answer to unwanted pregnancies is to provide places for women to go while pregnant.

            You are making a huge leap and then criticizing me for taking a small and logical step.

            Once again. You = hypocrite

      • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

        1. The reason you got outed was because you were posting from both that “name you used for years” AND your real name at the same time. AKA, the definition of sock puppet.

        2. It’s pretty hypocritical to talk about the fact that you were “outed” and then criticize me for not using my real name. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where I have to remain employed. If I share my views openly, in connection with my name, it will cause me significant hardship. That fact is, I believe, on of the main reasons this site was created, to give people like me a safe space to talk about the issues.

        3. Please, by all means, tell me what Sen. Bennet’s proposed abortion legislation is? I see the party-line message on his website, but what has he actually done about it. Because the only voting record I can find of his on the issue is when he voted to prohibit insurance payouts for abortions as part of the health care bill. And as far as I can tell he hasn’t written or sponsored anything else on the issue. So please, enlighten me. What is this “actual legislation” that we can expect from Sen. Bennet?

        4. Check my tagline, Nancy. It’s been there since I joined this site. The parties sicken me. Both of em. And people like you that tow their line when ordered without question, and protect them at all costs are everything that is wrong with politics in this country. You are just as bad as BJ and Donald Johnson from the right. And you attack anyone who shows that they might be thinking for themselves instead of just bowing to their party’s leaders. Yeah, I supported Andrew in the only way I could, I gave him money. But I was also on here or other sites regularly pointing out the flaws in his campaign. I believed he was the best in the race and I still do. But now I have to choose between two people that I think are both inferior. And as an independent, I am here to tell you that posts like this drive me away. And by the looks of things, I’ll be casting my vote for the candidate that has repulsed me the least. And that’s a sad way to be.

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          and my other name on the same site at the same time. I blog on various blogsites. I have used my screen name on some, my real name on others… always consistently on the same blog. When Romanoff’s blogteam outed me three times on two different blogs over the course of a year (and got banned each time for doing so) I finally threw in the towel on the screen name.

          This is not about me. This is about justice — about the things I believe in as an American. Liberty. Peace. Personal freedom. EQUALITY.

          I am proud of my progressive views. I am proud to support the candidates I support. I am proud of the social justice stands they take, and the people they are representing well when they do so.

          The next thing you asked was about Michael Bennet. I do not work for Bennet, never have. I am merely a supporter. I have always been passionate about keeping this Senate seat blue, and thought he was the best way to do that during the primary. Citizen Michael Bennet is irrelevant to my beliefs and my posts. If Andrew Romanoff won the primary, I would be defending his policies and his candidacy right now. But this is not about party affiliation, or wearing little donkeys on my clothes, or “winning” for winning’s sake.

          Supporting Democratic candidates is a means to an end. The end is to protect vulnerable people in our society. The end is to make this country a safe place for all Americans — where they can become all they were meant to be when they were born, without persecution or prejudice or unnecessary obstacles. The way to get to that end is to elect Democrats to the US Senate. If I can use my pen, or my keyboard, toward that goal, my time is well-spent.

          My efforts are not measured in earthly dollars, political fans, or blogs using my real name, or any other, Indy. My heart tells me when I am on the right track. When I see kids of every color walking to school together, when I see babies that are wanted and loved and well-cared for, when I see women who are proud of their accomplishments, when I see people of color in positions of responsibility, when I see elderly people in living situations that are safe and well-run, when I see a street with few foreclosure homes, when I see green swaths of land that are clean, and breathe air that is clean, I am reminded of my bigger purpose on this Earth — of our bigger purpose here.  

          • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

            You said:

            Is your hatred of me post-Democratic primary, or your loyalty to Andrew Romanoff, really that strong that you are not curious about the views of an extreme pro-life candidate who wants to write (or at least vote for) actual legislation?

            I then asked you to provide some information on what that “actual legislation” was. And then you claim to not know because you don’t work for Bennet. Whoops. Once again your talking points don’t match, well, reality. In any form.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              My last post with the name I used for years  was before that.

              Is this the same person who posted thousands of times all over the blogosphere the lie that Bennet didn’t support the public option until Romanoff entered the race in September, despite hundreds of photos, dozens of videos, handfuls of links, and many witnesses? The tactics seem to be the same.

              The primary is over. Your guy lost. Time to move on.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              To think Ken Buck has been an outspoken anti-abortion advocate who happens to be running for the US Senate, and assume he would not vote his conscience if there were actual legislation on the table, is pretty naive, don’t you think?

              I said I don’t work for or represent Bennet because you keep asking me his views, or about his legislative history on the subject. This isn’t about Bennet, and I don’t speak for him. This is about Buck. Bennet says he is pro-choice. Buck is anti-choice, even under extreme cases, like rape and incest. That’s all I need to know.

              It’s pretty simple, really.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              To think Ken Buck has been an outspoken anti-abortion advocate who happens to be running for the US Senate, and assume he would not vote his conscience if there were actual legislation on the table, is pretty naive, don’t you think?

              I said I don’t work for or represent Bennet because you keep asking me his views, or about his legislative history on the subject. This isn’t about Bennet, and I don’t speak for him. This is about Buck. Bennet says he is pro-choice. Buck is anti-choice, even under extreme cases, like rape and incest. That’s all I need to know.

              It’s pretty simple, really.

          • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

            You said:

            Indy, I have never posted under my real name and my other name on the same site at the same time.

            Except both of your accounts on this site were created within a week of each other almost a year ago. And you have written diaries as both within the last month. Now, god forbid that I “out” you, even though everyone already knows who you are. But give us all some credit and stop lying. You’re not good at it.

  4. marilou says:

    The way you’ve twisted what Ken Buck actually said and meant is dirty but typical of you liberals.  Gotta’ find some way to win this, even if it includes outright lies  No?

  5. nancycronknancycronk says:

    I’ve contributed to them myself.

    I am against men telling women what to do with their lives and their bodies. I am against little girl children being forced by anyone to continue a pregnancy that is harmful to them — pregnancies that occur during rape or incest. I am against lives being ruined — both the lives of the babies and the lives of the mothers and sometimes other children and family members, because there are too many mouths to feed and not enough resources. I am against children being thought of as property — to be cared for by the “owners” of said property, instead of equally by the entire community.

    When Ken Buck has some real answers about what is to happen to all of the babies he wants to bring into this world by outlawing abortion if he becomes Senator, then I will take back my sarcasm about “labor and delivery camps”.  

  6. nancycronknancycronk says:

    If this is a deeply held religious conviction of yours, I respect you. I can honestly say I have been on the fence at times on this issue for most of my life. I love babies. I’ve had several. I stayed home to raise my kids, and volunteered in countless ways to help other families over the years. I would sacrifice my own life before theirs every single time — with no hesitation.

    I would be against causing pain or harm to any sentient being of any species (human or animal, born or unborn), and say so often. I’m a gentle person — a vegetarian, even. When does sentiency (meaning the ability to feel pain) begin? I have no idea. I believe a full-term infant is sentient. I don’t believe a dozen undifferentiated, cells are sentient. Somewhere in between, accordig to science and my intuition, I think sentiency begins.

    My point is that Ken Buck’s suggested way to handle unwanted pregnancies is completely unrealistic, and I suspect he knows it. Unlike your arguments, I do not hear compassion in his. If someone feels passionately about a moral issue, how can they say, “I don’t intend to run on this issue”. I respect your view much more than his. Even thought we may disagree, yours has conviction.

    Marilu — most of my family of origin is pro-life. They put their money where their mouth is. They do not judge others. They are active in their churches, they take in the kids of other families who are struggling and raise them as their own, they tithe to care for the children of their religious communities who are less-fortunate. I respect them one hundred percent. (Incidentally, some vote Republican and others, Democrat).

    What I don’t respect is politicians using our emotions to pander to the religious extreme right to solicit donations and votes. If Buck really feels passionately about this issue, he must have some plans in the works for what happens after he changes the law, if he becomes Senator. If he is not going to change the law, doesn’t he owe you an explanation why not?

    I ask again — who does Ken Buck intend will raise tens of thousands of additional babies every year in this economy? The Doug Bruce followers of Colorado don’t seem to want to care for or educate the children who are already here.

    I don’t want to hear a defense of Ken Buck and what a “nice” man he is. I want to hear his ideas on how to raise children. After all, he is running for Senator, right?

    • marilou says:

      You have absolutely twisted and distorted Ken Buck’s position.  Go back and read it again.

      Have you ever met him and talked to him?  If not, you should.

      BTW, I’m really impressed with good people like you who wouldn’t dream of eating cow meat but will slaughter human beings in utero.  Have you ever watched a YouTube video of an unborn baby trying to avoid the abortionist’s dismemberi8ng tools?

      Yeah, really impressed.

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          I’ve already told you that I don’t take this issue lightly and I am against causing any being pain. I have tried to be respectful to you. I ask that you do the same. No one said these are easy questions. There are good people on both sides who care deeply about other people.

        • marilou says:

          a bat tonight but it was in the fetal stage so it doesn’t matter.

          • nancycronknancycronk says:

            Just because I do not believe in forcing eleven and twelve year old children to carry pregnancies to term after they have been raped by an Uncle or a stepparent, it doesn’t mean I am “pro-abortion” either. I resent your attacks.

            There is a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy a week or two after a positive result, and at full term. Even then, it is very sad — something I would not wish on anyone.

            I believe in responsibility. Everyone’s. Rather than make immature jabs, why don’t you answer the questions I asked originally. How is Ken Buck going to raise tens of thousands of children if abortion is outlawed?

            If he has a way to reduce or eliminate unwanted pregnancies entirely, I’m all for it. What are the plans? Democrats have a good way — based on research and evidence –it is called family planning education — teaching contraception and responsibility. It works great, when there is ample funding for it. Denial, however, simply does not work. There is a lot of evindence for that, too.

            http://www.medicalnewstoday.co

            • marilou says:

              You need to ask Ken Buck what you want to know.  I do not answer for him.  My contention is the same:  You twisted and distorted what he said.

              What I do know is that I would find some way to raise those babies before I’d advocate for their murder and dismemberment.

              Liberals don’t really need any plan at all.  They just kill ‘em.  Do you realize that if liberals kill and dismember more than conservatives, that pretty soon liberals will be extinct?

      • Gray in Mountains says:

        but I have watched earthworms move about when I am trying to put them on a hook. I don’t think worms are very sentient.

        Not meant to insult genuine human life.

      • nancycronknancycronk says:

        If I have an opportunity, I just might. I am curious. Have you met his opponent, Senator Bennet? He is a good man.

        • marilou says:

          and frankly, couldn’t get a straight answer out of him.  

          The people of Colorado were very clear about what we did not want in terms of nationalized health care.  Mr. Bennet was very clear that he would risk his job to force a nationalized plan on all of us.  It is now our job to make sure he loses his job.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

          BTW, I still can’t figure out where he stands on card check?  Do you know?

          I do know that Bennet hates all those dirty backroom deals that he votes for, over and over.  I’m just not convinced.

          • ajb says:

            No need for the “we the people” hyperbole.

            If everybody thought like you, marilou, there wouldn’t be Democratic majorities across the board in Colorado. The eggmendment.v1 would have passed. Ref C would have failed.

            You’re part of an extreme, fringe, minority.

  7. colawman says:

    PLEASE! Americans are out of work, home prices continue to fall and NancyCrank is concerned about a social issue. This November is not going to be an election based on a canidates stance on abortion. Your concern is ridiculous. How does a Senator have any say in overturning the law of the land, Roe v. Wade?

    Ken Buck used the term Dumbasses for people who can think of no other topic but Obama’s birth certificate.  I think the term is more applicable for NancyCrank.

    • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

      The abortion issue is not going to have any significant change in the next 6 years. Let’s focus on issues that either Buck or Bennet will actually have some effect on.

      And if we ARE going to focus on the issue, let’s focus on the actual issue, not some fantasy.  

    • nancycronknancycronk says:

      Taking away the civil liberties of 51% of the population of the United States of America is a dominant issue. Raising children is costly, and raising children one cannot afford or care for can result in foreclosures, child abuse, suicides, and much more.

      So sorry the attention is off your house payment for five minutes, Lawman.  

      • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

        Taking away the civil liberties of 51% of the population of the United States of America is a dominant issue.

        The only time this is a “dominant issue” is during elections. The rest of the year, hardly any time or attention is spent on this issue by politicians. Neither side really intends to move the needle, it’s all just posturing and pandering.

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          Neither side really intends to move the needle, it’s all just posturing and pandering.

          I remember pre-Bush II people saying,

          “He won’t start a war.”

          “He won’t ruin the environment.”

          “He won’t spy on American citizens.”

          “He won’t screw up the economy.”

          “He won’t embarrass us to the rest of the world.”

          “He’ll learn to say ‘nuclear’”.

          Call me paranoid, if you like. I’ve got good instincts about people. I don’t trust Ken Buck or his tea-party supporters.

          • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

            And yet here you are trying to change the subject again. A president has slightly more control than one of 100 senators and one of 535 total legislators.

            And still you miss the point of my objection. I agree with your distrust of Buck, I agree with your opposition to his views on abortion.   However, I disagree with this post. If you really believe that Buck can do what you seem to think he is going to, then you don’t understand anything about national politics.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              One Senator can cost an important vote. Abortion is one issue, but it usually comes hand-in-hand with similar issues. According to CO Pols most recent thread, Buck:

              Supports the Personhood Ammendment.

              Opposes guest worker programs.

              Supports more oil drilling and nuclear energy.

              Wants to repeal and replace Health Care Reform.

              Opposes the Federal Stimulus Package.

              Signed pledge to oppose all tax increases.

              Says Social Security is a “horrible” policy that will bankrupt the nation.

              Says the government should not subsidize student loans.

              Says the separation of church and state is “too strict already”.

              Do I think it is likely abortion will be an issue in this next session? Probably not. I agree with you on that. Am I willing to EVER take that chance? No.

              Indy, I do not have the luxury of knowing who you are, as you do, me. If we are facebook friends, then perhaps we are also friends in real life, or have been at some point, but I have no idea. You have insulted me a great deal here, and I have responded in anger. If we were ever friends, perhaps it is a relationship worth saving.

              I get a little emotional about this issue, I admit. If I have been irrational in any way, that was not my intent, and I apologize.

              I saw a lot of kid’s lives ruined when I worked at that crisis center years ago — kids who had no business being teenage parents and who should have been in school, IMHO. I remember one who dropped out because she was pregnant with twins at 14 and she could not read well. Her Mom was an alcoholic. Dad was long gone. I still think about her all the time. I feel guilty I didn’t live there long — I should have taught her how to read. She felt so ashamed about it… I don’t know if she ever confided in that to anyone else. I wonder how her kids, now grown, are doing? Did the cycle of poverty and not finishing school continue? Does she have grandchildren already? Can they read?

              You are welcome to contact me via facebook and we can talk on the phone or meet in person. It is not my intent to make enemies with anyone. If there are things you need to get off your chest about the primary, let’s do it — let’s talk face to face, or phone to phone. You know where to find me.

              Good night.  

              • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

                You are absolutely right. It is an important issue. And if you look closely, you’ll notice that I have not, yet, disagreed with you about that.

                My issue, Nancy, is how you chose to raise that issue. Specifically that you chose to raise a completely different issue, and a ridiculous one at that, in order to do so.

                No, we don’t know each other in real life. I have no idea whether we would get a long because people’s persona changes when they are talking about public policy.

                Tell yo what. You want you and me to be perfectly fine, right now?

                Write this, or some version of it, into the very next thing you post here:

                “Abortion is an issue that I have very passionate feelings about. Because of those feelings, I over-reacted to some language from the most recent interview with Ken Buck. Despite my skepticism, I have no real reason to think that Buck’s involvement with the project mentioned is anything but honorable. I will continue to raise this issue, but the way that I did it this time was not the right way.”

                You say that and I will apologize for everything mean I have said today. But if you can’t acknowledge that the things YOU have said are wrong, including both the original post and implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with you “must be a man”, if you can’t admit that those things were wrong, than I have no reason to think that we can get along in any context.

                • nancycronknancycronk says:

                  I made some changes to my piece and I feel comfortable with it now.

                  I never said people who do not agree with me must be men. I said that in response to you saying it wasn’t a “significant issue”.

                  Legislating one’s uterus would may not be a significant issue to a man. To the 51% of the American population who has one, it is.

                  • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

                    You said it in response to “colawman” when he said abortion wasn’t going to be a significant issue in this election. My only comment on that particular line before yours was saying that if we were going to to talk about the abortion issue, then we should talk about the actual issue, not a construct of your imagination. I still feel that way. Despite your improvements to the diary (it is much better now), I still think you are focusing too much on the off hand comment and not enough on his actual pro-life stance which, as you have pointed out, is radically extreme. I think that your objection (and your point) would be much more credible if you focussed on the heart of the issue instead of the fringe.

                    I’m probably gonna stop checking in here, now. The only other argument has completely degenerated and has no value to me and this one seems to be over.

                    I’m sure we’ll run into each other on the other threads, I’m sure it won’t be as heated.

      • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

        If anyone on this website said “You must be a woman” about absolutely anything, they would be figuratively strung up by every woman on this site.

        There are plenty of pro-life women. Hell, one of the wrote the “personhood” amendment in 08. And there are plenty of women for whom abortion is just not an issue they care about.

        For you to imply that it is some inherently male trait is sexist and offensive. Earlier you purported to be a person who apologizes when you have done something wrong. Now is one of those times. Let’s see what you do.

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          there are plenty of women for whom abortion is just not an issue they care about

          • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

            Are you going to pull a BJ and tell me that there aren’t women who don’t care about abortion issues. Say that out loud for me. It will eliminate what little credibility you might have left.

            In the mean time, check this out:

            http://www.rasmussenreports.co

            It’s the latest poll about abortion views.

            A few highlights:

            58% of women believe that abortion is morally wrong in most cases, compared to 49% of men.

            Women (53%) feel more strongly than men (42%) that abortions are too easy to get.

            Thirty-seven percent (37%) say it’s not very or not at all important to them as a voting issue.

            But in terms of overall voter interest, abortion ranks well below 10 other issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports including the economy, government ethics and immigration.

            This is in line with findings on this question in surveys for over four years now.

  8. botw says:

    I’ve only skimmed this whole exchange, but there certainly seems to be a lot of heat, which I will avoid.

    I do want to say that the following comments from Nancy were nicely done:

    Supporting Democratic candidates is a means to an end. The end is to protect vulnerable people in our society. The end is to make this country a safe place for all Americans — where they can become all they were meant to be when they were born, without persecution or prejudice or unnecessary obstacles. The way to get to that end is to elect Democrats to the US Senate. If I can use my pen, or my keyboard, toward that goal, my time is well-spent.

    My efforts are not measured in earthly dollars, political fans, or blogs using my real name, or any other, Indy. My heart tells me when I am on the right track. When I see kids of every color walking to school together, when I see babies that are wanted and loved and well-cared for, when I see women who are proud of their accomplishments, when I see people of color in positions of responsibility, when I see elderly people in living situations that are safe and well-run, when I see a street with few foreclosure homes, when I see green swaths of land that are clean, and breathe air that is clean, I am reminded of my bigger purpose on this Earth — of our bigger purpose here.

  9. CastleMan says:

    David’s interview is, in my judgment, somewhat unfair to Mr. Buck.

    The reason I say this is that David paraphrased Mr. Buck’s comments but did not, for the most part, post Mr. Buck’s actual comments.

    When an interview is conducted, and when an article based on that interview is published, the proper course of action is to allow the subject to speak for himself or herself and not to put words in that person’s mouth or, generally, summarize their statements.

    It’s one thing to summarize an interview subject’s reaction to a question on a very limited basis and, naturally, sometimes that is done when the subject does not wish to be quoted.

    However, I think David’s article would have been much stronger, and far more informative, if he had recorded Mr. Buck’s actual words.

    As to this subject of abortion, those words would provide much more certainty about the candidate’s point of view than David’s interpretation or understanding of those words.

    Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.