Reminder: In CD-4, Flip-Flopping is Still Bad

A new ad from GOP CD-4 candidate Scott Renfroe brands fellow Republican primary contender Ken Buck as a flip-flopper for his ill-fated abandonment in 2010 of the "Personhood" abortion ban:

The primary election is just weeks away, but this ad is an example of how the battle to succeed Rep. Cory Gardner in staunchly conservative CD-4, which will be decided June 24th, may well an uncomfortable period of time for Gardner. Gardner's own reversal on Personhood four years after Buck–which Gardner says had been coming ever since Buck "discovered" on the 2010 campaign trail that Personhood could ban certain forms of birth control, despite still being a sponsor of equivalent federal legislation–is one of his biggest liabilities, and there's nothing about his successors bickering over the issue that helps Republicans move on.

On the other hand, it is what it is, and Renfroe will have his share of CD-4 primary voters to make the point.

59 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Renfroe is on track to coming in 3rd place in the primary behind both Buck and Kirkmeyer.  To date, his only endorsement has been Dudley Brown and the RMGO.

    Candidates in the lead do not go negative in a primary.  Primary voters don't like that.  Buck is covered with the pro-life crowd.  Besides having the endorsement of the Family Research Council, after the Renfroe ad came out Bill Armstrong put out his endorsement.

    Photo: Honored to have the endorsement of former US Senator and current President of Colorado Christian University Bill Armstrong.

    In a Republican primary, if you have the pro-life crowd, the current office holder, two respected party leaders like Hank Brown and Bill Armstrong and the Tea Party Express endorsing you, a change you made 4 years ago is not going to kill you.

    • Republican 36 says:

      When did Hank Brown endorse Buck?

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        It was posted to his facebook page on May 22nd

        Photo: I’m supporting Ken Buck to be the next Congressman for Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District. Ken will be a great Congressman for the district. As a strong supporter of a Balanced Budget Amendment, Ken will be a strong, independent voice in the battle to reign in the reach of the federal government. --Former U.S. Senator Hank Brown

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          I’m supporting Ken Buck to be the next Congressman for Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District. Ken will be a great Congressman for the district. As a strong supporter of a Balanced Budget Amendment, Ken will be a strong, independent voice in the battle to reign in the reach of the federal government. –Former U.S. Senator Hank Brown

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            Shouldn't that endorsement have a disclaimer/reservation?  "He will, however, reserve the right to expand govermental reach on matters concerning a woman's uterus".

            • Andrew Carnegie says:

              1.  I think the reference was as to fiscal matters.

              2. As to your abortion reference, less than Renfroe and Kirkmeyer would propose to do.

              • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

                1. I understand the endorsement was related to fiscal matters – but you get my point.

                2. Perhaps – I just don't pay much attention to any of their positions on women's reproductive rights – there is a high degree of predicatiability on the rhetoric. It's all useless unless they want to start addressing a wide range of issues outside of the uterus.

          • ajb says:

            rain, rein, reign…it sucks when you're limited by your free public education, eh?

            • BlueCat says:

              I thnk today's Rs would prefer to reign instead of having to deal with the undeserving unwashed masses interfering with their plans by voting. Limiting all that democracy is what their endless attempts at voter suppression are for.

              • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                Voters: those "undeserving unwashed masses interfering with their plans by voting", in BC's great phrasing.

                Good thing we vote by mail now, at home – close to the shower and other hygeienic conveniences. Thank you yet again, Senator Giron, for HB1303!

        • Republican 36 says:

          Thanks for the information.

    • OrangeFreeOrangeFree says:

      Candidates in the lead do not go negative in a primary.  Primary voters don't like that.

      Further proof that you don't know how politics work.

      • Urban Snowshoer says:

        OrangeFree says:

        Sun June 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM MDT

        Candidates in the lead do not go negative in a primary.  Primary voters don't like that.

        Further proof that you don't know how politics work.

        Negative advertising is one of those things that few people will admit to liking, or being influenced by, because of the stigma.  However, I highly doubt candidates would continue to spend thousands—if not millions—of dollars on attack ads, if it didn’t produce results.  



  2. Andrew Carnegie says:

    If we are putting up a Renfroe ad, compare it to a Buck ad and you get a sense Renfroe knows he is losing and Buck knows he is winning.  

    Here is the Buck ad:

    or at least a link to one:

  3. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    As I was hitting 'Post Comment' the phone rang and it was an 'anti-Buck' robocall from 'Donna' who feels she's been double-crossed by Ken for backtracking on Personhood and identified him as an "opportunisitic politician who will say anything to get elected".  It ended by saying to vote for someone with principles, but it doesn't mention the name Renfroe, Kirkmeyer or Laffey – or who was sponsoring the ad.

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      Buck and Gardner, who are both pro-life, have been getting attacked by the people behind the Personhood Amendment because they will not back it.  My guess is those are the folks behind the Robo calls.  Not exactly brilliant strategists.  Oppose pro-life Republicans who have a reasonable chance at getting elected and help ensure non-pro life candidates get elected.  see.

      • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        That wouldn't be te first time ideologues bit their collective nose to spite their face.

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          I was hoping the Republicans were getting more pragmatic, and I think they are, but it shows there is still some work to do.

          • ct says:

            By "more pragmatic" you mean "more dishonest" correct?



            • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

              ct he certainly doesn't mean being more pro-science which would cause his head to explode like a mega tornado fueled by rising temperatures and massive amounts of water in the atmosphere ripping through the plains towns of CD 4.  I suppose if his fanatical American Taliban minister told him that Climate Change was real because it is a sign of end times and the Apocalypse, he would "BELIEVE" it in spades.  All hail the power of superstituous belief systems.  In his tiny world being anti-science is a badge of honor and something to puff your chest out about.

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        They're pro-birth, not pro-life.  There's a difference.

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          In the context of a Republican primary it would stick with pro-birth, but I get your point.

        • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

          I've been saying this for years, Michael. If they were pro-life, the would be in favor of a living wage and social assistance for parents who need it to raise thier own kids, instead of making that damn-near impossible. Their solution for "can't afford kids?"; give them to some nice, rich, Christian couple who can afford them. But no birth control so poor people will keep on cranking out those babies. 

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          Indeed, Michael, a big difference. I'm a lifelong traditional conservative. In my world, one does not use big government to try and impose religious ideology on others. That's called socialism. 

          As a real conservative, I support individual rights, freedom of consicence that does not involve discrmination, and religious liberty. "Religious liberty" does not give one the right to tell other people what to do.

          • thagaycowboy says:

            No. no, no. Seriously, this is why I have a (political) problem even with you Libertarian Repubs. You are apparently impervious to factual information. 

            1. Socialism, as an ideology, says nothing about government imposing belief systems on individuals and IN FACT is actually usually coupled with the kind of radical democracy that would ensure more religious freedom than we have in the USA… Just look at all of the religious whackjobs, be they Christian, Muslim, or Jewish that get to do whatever the hell they want in Europe. Regardless, socialism is purely and solitarily about economic regulation. It has nothing to do with personal lives/beliefs.

            2. You are probably referring to Communism, when you talk about the government regulating personal lives, which in some forms does regulate and persecute religion. However, Marx was an atheist, as was Lenin, as was Mao, as was Stalin, as was Pol Pot, as was literally every one of them except Kim Il Sung. In many ways, they were more progressive about abortion than the United States was in the 20th century. In China, many religions are banned and none are forced on the people.

            I am sorry, but religiously justified opprssion is, was, and always will be a conservative phenomenon. Dictatorship=/=Socialism and more often than not, Socialists were the ones fighting conservatives for democracy. Please read about the Italian antifa, the Spanish Civil War, the Brazilian PT, or literally any non-Stalinist/Maoist leftist movement in history. 

            • Conserv. Head Banger says:

              My reply to Michael about a big difference was in regard to his statement about pro-birth vs. pro-life.

              For the gaycowboy, I have no interest in getting into semantics with you. But, under your premise, if I was able to make it down to the state house a few months ago to testify against the Republican ban-abortion bill, I would have referred to them as communists, not socialists? Nanny-state socialism has a better ring to it.

              Actually, my American Heritage Dictionary defines communism as strictly an economic program. It defines socialism as a system where producers have both political power and control means of production.

              You cited a number of historical references but which, to me, are of no relevance in a Colorado-based discussion.   Regards,  CHB 

            • FrankUnderwood says:

              well said!

            • BlueCat says:

              Very well said. While communist regimes have sought to ban or restrict religion, neither communist nor socialist systems impose it. Ours is designed to do neither though the conservative religious right never gives up trying. 

              One way they seek to do this is by insisting on prayer in our public schools and other public, tax payer supported institutions which forces everyone to support the promotion of exclusively Christian beliefs with their tax dollars as well as have their children subjected to the pressure of secular authority figures promoting their religious views

              Another way is by seeking laws that allow discrimination against those who don't conform to their interpretations of their personal religious beliefs, such as when they seek to ban equal marriage rights, allow retailers to discriminate against gay peopleor to allow insurers to refuse to cover legal, doctor perscribed means of birth control due to religious objections.

              Conservatives are most definitely no friends of freedom of religion which can be guaranteed only by a secular government that stays out of the religion business, leaving everyone free from coercion in religious matters either to conform to majority views or to pay to support religious creeds with their tax dollarsThat's why our founders specifically excluded religious matters from the arena of that which can be governed by majority rule under our constitution.

              Today's Conservatives can't get it through there heads that it doesn't matter what percentage are Christian, the state is forbidden from being a Christian state or showing preference for Christianity just as surely as it is forbidden from being a Hindu, Jewish. Buddhist or Muslim state. The state's theater of operation is the temporal, not spiritual, realm. The spiritual is each individuals own damn business. That's how we maintain freedom of conscience and religion.

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                Blue Cat: too bad that you feel a need to "tar and feather" all conservatives because of the antics of a number who call themselves "conservatives." Of course, I could come back with all the liberal political correctness that is now pervasaive on many college campuses, but I won't do that.

                Back to the 4CD race. How many of you are aware that Senator Renfroe was the primary sponsor, in 2013 and 2014 of what I call the "special interest land grab"bills. Those were the bills calling on the federal government to cede all federal "agricultural land" in Colorado to the state to manage or sell as it pleases ("agricultural" is in quotes becausae the bill never defined what that meant). Anyway, I'd think that most Coloradoans are happy with, or at least neutral on, management of the public lands that belong to all citizens, by the federal government.

                • BlueCat says:

                  Your party is doing a great job of tarring and feathering conservatism itself. Your elected Republican pols now run the gamut only from extremely conservative but not quite raving mad to Tea Party nut job with too few exceptions to make a difference. With few exceptions they call for the things I said they call for. Some have been in every party platform for numerous election cycles.

                  As long as you keep voting these people, who are no longer the exception but the rule, into office and making bigotry and demands for the government to favor your religious views part of your official party platforms it's not tarring and feathering for us to notice. It's just us being, you know, sentient beings with higher IQs than your average rock.

          • FrankUnderwood says:

            Actually imposing religious beliefs on others is the hallmark of a theocracy, not socialism.

            Socialism uses a command economic model to level the playing field for all…..and basically game the outcome.

          • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

            Someday, maybe, I'll run across a wingnut who actually knows what "socialism"is. You're obviously not the one nor ever likely to be.

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.