President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
October 15, 2010 08:26 PM UTC

Pro-Life Group Attacks Buck in Press Conference Today

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: The flyer handed out at today’s press conference:

We discussed yesterday how Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck hasn’t done himself many favors by trying to moderate his pre-primary positions. As we’ve said time and time again, looking like a flip-flopper is far worse than having particular positions that some voters may disagree with, but sometimes changing your position causes even more trouble with the people you were originally trying to target.

According to a press release from American Right to Life Action (full release after the jump), they plan to give Buck the business during a 1:15 p.m. press conference today:

“Ken Buck has already broken every pro-life campaign promise he made,” said Lolita Hanks, president of ARTLA, “including that he now recanted on his promises to fight for a state pro-life amendment to protect unborn children from the beginning of their development, to introduce a ban on abortion, and to not confirm pro-abortion judges.”

By all accounts, the U.S. Senate race is going to come down to the wire. Buck can hardly afford to be losing a base group of potential voters at this late date, and if today’s press conference gets decent media coverage, there may be a good number of otherwise supportive voters who decide just to leave his name blank on their ballots.

American Right To Life Action, a 527 group headquartered in Colorado, will hold a press conference in front of Denver’s federal Courthouse today at 1:15 p.m. criticizing a Republican U.S. Senate candidate.

“Ken Buck has already broken every pro-life campaign promise he made,” said Lolita Hanks, president of ARTLA, “including that he now recanted on his promises to fight for a state pro-life amendment to protect unborn children from the beginning of their development, to introduce a ban on abortion, and to not confirm pro-abortion judges.”

Also appearing for American RTL will be former Colorado candidate for governor Ben Goss who spoke with Ken Buck to determine whether the U.S. Senate candidate held a true anti-abortion commitment. Goss will explain that in a conversation withKen Buck, the candidate admitted that he would not make personhood a feature of his campaign, but that every other indication was that he would fight to end abortion.

“Now he says he will even confirm ‘pro-choice’ judges,” said Goss, “that’s not pro-life, that’s unacceptable.”

“Republicans like Ken Buck have turned abortion into a perpetual fundraiser,” said Hanks. “In the primary, they’re 100% pro-life; in the general election, they moderate; and if they win, they govern as liberal pro-choicers.”

“We will also attempt to prove that Ken Buck lied to pro-lifers and to all Colorado voters on CBS’ Face the Nation,” said ARTL’s director of research Darrell Birkey, “with this exchange:”

Bob Schieffer: You also said at one point that you would support a proposed law out there in Colorado that would have banned some forms of birth control, some birth control pills. Do you still hold to that?

Ken Buck: I have never said that. No. I have said that there is a state amendment on personhood. I am in favor of personhood as a concept. I am not taking a position on any of the state amendments.

ARTL will also present the survey question from a Colorado pro-life organization that Ken Buck answered “Yes” to indicating that he would support a state pro-life constitutional amendment upholding the sanctity of life from the single cell stage of development. “That answer, and other evidence, shows that Ken Buck misled pro-lifers into believing he truly would fight to protect the tiniest children,” said Hanks. “At least Buck has made it clear before election day that he uses the unborn as a political ploy to get money and votes.”

Who: American RTL Action with former Colorado Candidate Ben Goss

What: Don’t Throw the Bums In Press Conference

Where: In front of Denver’s Byron White U.S. Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street

When: 1:15 p.m. today, Friday Oct. 15

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Pro-Life Group Attacks Buck in Press Conference Today”

  3. Someone who believes in pro-life issues more than Ken Buck is going to vote for Michael Bennet instead?

    Those people in the middle are more pro-life than Ken Buck?

    2. …and they have to think that all the gyrations that he’s gone thru on his pro-life “stance” make them realize they cannot trust a single thing he says.  

    3. it’s like the letter to the editor in The Paper That Must Not Be Named recently in which the lefty castigated Bennet for not going with the Employee Free Choice Act and pledged to vote for some third party lefty candidate so that Buck would win.  (I won’t mention the writer’s name because I might be outing JO or StrykerK2.)

       No doubt Bennet’s efforts to win over the middle will alienate a handful of uber-left.  And Buck’s buckpedaling will cost him a few votes on the Whack-job Right.

        The whack job defectors will offset each other.  This election, like most, will be won in the middle.  Right now, I think it’s too damn close to call.  But I’ll keep hitting the phone bank to turn out Bennet’s base.

        Here’s my offer, H-man:

        I will tell the uber-left to go beej itself (to use the beejman’s favorite word) if you’ll do the same to the uber-right.  Then we’ll meet after the election, quaff a cool one, and laugh at all the idiots who wasted their votes.

        1. ARTLA definitely isn’t endorsing Bennet. I thought that cadenv had replied to Voyageur’s comment re: “The Paper That Must Not Be Named.”

          Apologies.

      2. They made it very clear at the press conference that they aren’t endorsing ANYONE. Certainly not Bennet.

        Ben Goss was there, I half expected him to say something about the ACP, but they don’t have a senate candidate. Goss said he thought about running for the senate once Tancredo had taken over the top spot on the ACP ticket.

    5. you don’t always have to fill in all the bubbles. Areyou saying that Pro-lifers should just fall in line and vote for Buck because Bennet is a worse choice for their principles?

      I don’t agree with Pro-lifers at all. However, I absolutley respect how principled they are, and I don’t see them voting against their principle. They will leave it blank or write in a candidate who believes the same as they do. It’s the respectable thing to do.

      1. You read a bit much into what I said.  I was responding to h-mans suggestion that they were going to vote for bennet, though that wasn’t stated anywhere in the piece.

    6. In 1982, I sat at Republican state headquarters when Bob Teeter, Presidnet of Market Opinion Research, delivered the results of the baseline survey commissioned by the Colorado Republican Party. Please keep in mind, Governor Lamm (D) was running for his third term as governor and there were three or four Republican candidates.

      When Mr. Teeter got to the governors race, he looked at the Republcian candidates and their campaign managers and said you have already lost this race. Keep in mind this was June 1982 approximately five months before the election. One of the campaign managers became somewhat irate and said to Mr. Teeter how can you say we don’t have a chance when around 35% of the people who approve of Gov. Lamm’s handling of the governors office disagree with him on almost all major policy issues.

      Mr. Teeter replied that was true but that didn’t matter.

      The same campaign manager grew very irate and said I just don’t see how you can say it doesn’t matter.

      Mr. Teeter, a soft spoken man, replied: “They trust him.”

      Here were the approval numbers for Governor Lamm in 1982: Over 90% of the Democrats approved of him as governor; over 80% of the unaffiliateds approved; and (I have never forgotten this number)72% of the Republicans approved of him as governor. By the way, at the time, these were the highest approval rating numbers for any statewide candidate in any state of the union ever recorded, but the important point Mr. Teeter made was the fact voters across the board tursted Governor Lamm. Gov. Lamm had made controversial statements (e.g. “duty to die”) but what people took away from that was the fact he said what he meant and meant what he said and therefore they trusted him.

      And that is the point Mr. Buck doesn’t understand (Coloradopols does). When you flip/flop like Mr. Buck has done, in the end, no one trusts him, even his supporters.

    7. is relaxing your throat muscles for Ken Buck’s member.

      This is about him being distrusted by his natural base because he can’t be trusted to stick to a position for more than a month or two, or until it becomes politically expedient to abandon it.

    8. If there are any Republicans left who actually honestly care about abortion, this dampens their enthusiasm to go out and vote, for Buck or anyone.

      Buck of all people lying to anti-abortion activists tells conservatives Buck isn’t really one of them. He just said he was to win the primary.

      I’m surprised there’s still a single honest Republican left who actually cares about abortion (instead of just using it to motivate the Christian right), but hey, there you go.

  4. For voters tuning in late (people who live in caves and have no television, apparently), they may come away from this thinking that Buck is more moderate than he truly is, rather than seeing this as a reflection of Buck’s flip-flops.

    Moderates expect to be castigated by ARTL.  

  5. And they haven’t gotten a damm thing for it.  It is about time they realized that they have been ‘screwed.”..

    What Buck said during Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate was the most bizarre thing yet.  He said he agreed with Clinton that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  He said he supported the pro-choice position, but he was against people who were “pro-abortion”….people who promoted abortion….he neglected to name who these mythical people are because they don’t exist…..

    What Buck is really demonstrating is his utter contempt for the people of Colorado. He thinks we will swallow anything…I think he is right.

    Before the dems jump up and down with glee…..remember, Buck could pick up the votes of those people just waking up to the race who will vote for Buck because he is “pro=choice” and those ugly lying dems have put out all those false commercials…

    Early in the morning, guys, you got to get up early in the morning.

    This is what I think.  I think Buck wants out of Colorado NOW and this is his ticket home to the east coast…..

        1. That’s why ancient people wanted to have them carry the babies off, I suppose.

          What confuses me is why supposedly “pro-life” people would want poor innocent babies to be exposed and eaten by vicious carrion-scavenging raptors?

            1. pro zygote people ONLY care for the Babies while they are IN the womb… After they are born, they then can suffer without Health care and Starve! or if still unwanted, be carried away to be eaten by raptors.

              Simple really.

  7. His defense is that he didn’t know there would be legal consequences.  Which makes sense since he’s never been close to the law.

    I think Weld County is very lucky their DA can’t be bothered to come to work.

    1. in phone conversations during phonebanking. Did he seriously not know how to read a one paragraph amendment and understand it?? Really?

      Or is he a two-faced liar that saw he’s losing women voters and did a 180 on his position?

      Which is it–it he a liar or is he stupid?  

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

121 readers online now

Newsletter

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