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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 15, 2010 08:45 PM UTC

What to Expect from a Tea-Party Senator?

  • 94 Comments
  • by: nancycronk

If Christine O’Donnell is any indication of what we can expect if tea-partier candidate Ken Buck is elected to the Senate, there could be more socially conservative items on the agenda. Buck, who has stated publicly his faith requires him to be against abortion even under the cases of rape and incest, has been firmly supported by the tea-party in Colorado since the beginning of his candidacy. More recently, he has tried to distance himself from the far-right to appear “moderate”, and appeal to suburban voters, particularly women.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow shows us what is important to some on the far-right:

How does Ken Buck feel about homosexuality? Does it always require capital punishment? (Leviticus 20:13)

Wearing mixed fibers? Genetic crop engineering? (Leviticus 19:19)

The prohibition against cutting hair? (Leviticus 19:27)

Stoning for using profanity when speaking to one’s parents? (Leviticus 20:9)

Must all adulterers be stoned in a public square? (Leviticus 20:10)

Must all people be shunned if caught having sexual relations during menstruation? (Leviticus 20:18)

Must all prostitutes be put to death by fire, or just those with the last name of Cohen? (Leviticus 21:9)

Should people with disabilities be barred from attending worship services, too?

(Leviticus 21:17-18)

Where will people who take the name of the L-rd in vain be stoned? On the steps of the state capital, or at a federal building?

(Leviticus 24:14-16)

And what about the slaves we are allowed to keep? Should we buy them from Canada or Mexico?

“Concerning the men and women you may have as slaves: you are to buy men- and women-slaves from the nations surrounding you.” (Leviticus 25:44)  

Eating shellfish? Punishment for gossip? Setting people on fire? This voter is curious to know how far Ken Buck will go to follow the convictions of his conservative beliefs.

Mr. Buck?

To those who will undoubtedly accuse me of religious bigotry for this post — I am not against any religion. I am against religious extremism. I am against fundamentalist blind faith, particularly among elected officials who must represent people of all faiths, and those who choose no faith at all. There is a big difference.

(Translations courtesy of crosswalk.com)

Tweet
Share

Comments

94 thoughts on “What to Expect from a Tea-Party Senator?”

    1. My interest is keeping conservatives out of office. I am interested in protecting the most vulnerable people in our state, and in our country, from those who would take away their rights to increase corporate profits.

      A vote for Buck is a vote for going back one hundred years in time. Be progressive — vote for Democrats, even moderate ones. Our rights as Americans are at stake here.

      1. “I’m confused.

        How does writing blog diaries indicate I am more than just a supporter? Anyone can write a diary. I am not paid by the campaign — just a volunteer with my own personal opinions.”

        Nancy:

        You are the only person on this site that I have encountered that is evil.  Isn’t there a thread of decency that you learned through your Christian to Jewish travels?  You are a disgrace to both traditions.

        1. Your personal attacks of me continue. Now I am evil for pointing out that Ken Buck has a long history of cozying up to the tea party activists in Colorado, is willing to take their campaign money, but is currently pretending to be a moderate because he has been advised that is the only way he can win?

          If telling the truth is evil, I wear the name proudly.

  2. Ken Buck supports the death penalty for homosexuals… as evidenced by the hate crime he prosecuted against the murderer of a transgender teen.

    http://coloradoindependent.com…

    Ken Buck doesn’t think men should cut their hair… as evidenced by his bodacious locks.

    I’d be willing to bet that he’s worn a shirt or two with mixed fibres. And lets not forget all the cases he prosecuted where he demanded stoning of the defendant for adultery or rebellion. Not to mention all those he’s set on fire and the slaves he owns.

    Please.

    What a crock (pun intended). You’re not attacking Buck; you’re attacking the 80% of Americans who claim Christianity as their religion – you obviously don’t understand the Bible.

    1. (Seriously.) I really do. That is a feather in his cap.

      On a lighter note, I am thrilled to hear he doesn’t own slaves, and doesn’t set anyone on fire. That is a ringing endorsement, to be sure.

      Now, if he goes on tv and denounces the tea party and their racist charicterizations of our President, refuses to take their campaign money until they clean up their act, and changes his mind on reproductive rights for women (who incidentally, make up 51% of the population of the United States) I’ll even consider voting for him.  

      1. Is that what they’re telling you over at the Bennet campaign? I suppose it makes sense given the crap he’s put on TV.

        The Tea Party is not racist. Gee is that your entire campaign strategy? Blame Bush and call people racists? Ken Buck will laugh all the way to the Senate.

        1. Hmmm… I guess the John Birch society is just a great group of regular guys, right? We certainly hang out in different echo chambers, then.

          When I was campaigning for health care reform, I met so many racist people carrying racist signs at events, I couldn’t believe it. Some pushed a young woman I worked with and told her to go back to Mexico (she was from New Jersey), just because her skin was a little darker. She was terrified. Some were packing weapons. Some had threatening signs. We never met any scary people on the pro-reform sign. They were calm and reasonable. Passionate, but reasonable.

          Seriously BJ and H-Man, I get it there are legitimate populist sentiments in the tea-party crowd. People don’t understand that 30 years of trickle-down Voodoo right-wing supply-side economics (thanks, Ronald Reagan) eroded our middle class, and they are rightfully angry. Their anger is legitimate. Sadly, their choice of a scapegoat for that anger is dangerous and misdirected.  

          http://www.pensitoreview.com/W…

          http://startthinkingright.file…

          http://cache.gawkerassets.com/…

          http://mrmokelly.com/wp-conten…

          http://cache.gawkerassets.com/…

          http://madmikesamerica.com/wp-…

          1. I don’t know what tea parties you’re going to. My guess is it would be one of those “crash the Tea Party” people. Regardless, how is it that H-man can be banned for calling you a bigot, but they don’t ban you for calling me a racist?

          2. Crock, go to a tea party and see if you can find any racists.  You libs always bring race into things when you have no other cogent arguments. You are quite disgusting.

      2. Remember?  It was hilarious… candid… foot in mouth?  Any of this ringing a bell?

        I also think you’re lying about that whole “consider voting for him.”  Romanoff didn’t pass your random test, so I have doubts you would support Buck if he swore to call Bennet before every vote and do exactly as he says.

        That’s fine.  There’s no need to fib.

        Even accepting the contributions is an issue you’re hypocritical on.  When I pointed out, in a different forum, that Bennet takes money from a slew of unattractive corporations (like payday lenders), you called me a right wing troll who didn’t deserve to even be noticed.  And that was literally all I’d said.  In a conversation where you’d mentioned both how great Bennet is and how evil payday lenders are.

        So now I’m irritated and taking it out on you.  Sorry.  Just call me a troll and ignore.  I know you want to anyway.

        1. Feel free to find it and send me the link. If I did, I will gladly apologize. I have a sharp tongue at times, but namecalling isn’t my style.

          And you’re right — I probably wouldn’t vote for him as long as their was an R after his name, and there was a D also on the ballot. You caught me on that fib. ; )

          1. making something up, I received a couple of downright scary emails.  Like, considered a restraining order scary, really freaked me out.  I’m not saying you’ll do the same, but frankly I’m not worried enough to take the risk.

            So no worries and fair enough for both, eh?

              1. in a different forum

                means it wasn’t here.  In this other forum, I’m not anonymous.  Seems dumb that you would suddenly become oddly threatening since you already know who I am (in this other place), but that’s actually exactly what happened the other time.  And that person never did come back here to admit I wasn’t a liar.

                So I will not be outing myself to you to make a point.

                  1. In this other place, the place where you called me a troll, I’m not anonymous.  So to bring your attention to it, I would have to go to that non-anonymous place and tell you that I am droll.  The last time I did that, with a seemingly normal person, it got scary.

                    I’m glad you don’t see it as a threat, but as I said, it really scared me.  I don’t scare easy.

                    So at this point I’m officially telling you to piss off and learn to read.

                    Good night.

                    1. but you are making no sense. According to you, I am supposed to know who you are, and what you are referring to, about another name and another time and another place, but you won’t give me any hints about any of it, except that you are “droll” (whatever the Hell that means).

                      It’s like playing “Guess what I’m thinking” with a prank phone caller with a disguised voice and a blocked caller ID.

                      No thanks.

                      As for you being scared, yeah, the blogosphere is scary sometimes. I was outed over and over by crazy people who hassled me on facebook and brough innocent friends into their delusions, until I finally said, “Screw it” and went with my own name. It was scarier being anonymous and freaking out all the time, wondering if someone knew who I was.

                      I have nothing to hide. I blog that Ken Buck is a disingenuous homophobic mysogynist, that Michael Bennet is a decent human being, and a host of other things because I believe them and am not ashamed of my opinions. I blog that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, that gays and lesbians should have the same rights I do, and that people who try to take money out of social service programs that benefit innocent children are SCHMUCKS. If any of those positions upset other people, so be it. I don’t care who knows I think those things. I am proud of them.

                      I’m proud to be an American — someone who believes that every person, of every age, every race, every religion, every socio-economic status, every political affiliation, every level of education, every political ideology, deserves the exact same rights. If putting that opinion on the blogs every week makes my life more challenging… oh well. If standing up for those rights can’t be done without hiding behind a fake name, my life wouldn’t be worth living.

                      If life is not a daring adventure… it is nothing.

                      Being anonymous is your choice, and your right. It’s not mine. Just understand that by being anonymous, you can’t expect people to read your mind about who you are and what you are talking about sometimes.

                    2. You didn’t understand for some reason.

                      That aside, when you’re too simple to understand the little blue signatures on the bottom of all the comments here, you have proven, beyond a doubt, that you are just stupid.  It has ceased to be an opinion (I know you have trouble knowing the difference) and is now indisputable fact.  Just so you know, next time someone points it out, they are not making a personal attack.  They are merely posting a fact.

                      I’m sorry.  That must make your life very difficult.

        2. The last trash she posted pictured depicted women held against ther will evoking images of concentration camps?  Now she defames people that believe in the Bible.  That is not what I consider to be political discourse.

          I don’t like bigots.

          I am sorry that you do.

            1. Your banning policies are really inconsistent.

              Knock yourselves out I suppose.

              Now there’s a larger conversation: When all the respect is gone, where do you find information?  Interesting…

              1. Our policies are pretty clear. H-man called someone “a piece of shit” and “evil.” There’s no need for that. We don’t want the comments here to just devolve into unnecessary vulgar insults. People shouldn’t have to worry that they are going to be bullied with vulgarity for something they write.

                  1. There’s no black and white answer, and we readily admit that. What would you suggest? (seriously — we would really be interested in suggestions).

                    We very rarely ban anyone, and it’s a delicate balance to try to keep by allowing people to say pretty much anything but also trying to keep the comments from devolving into a “f*** you,” “No, f*** you” back and forth where people might feel too intimidated to participate. We try our best to keep that balance, but no matter what decisions we make, someone is always going to disagree. We don’t like banning someone, and we really do look for reasons not to do it.  

                    1. Some were completely parrell to what happened here.

                      Poster A says something Poster B finds to be “bigoted” and Poster B runs off on a rant about it.  It’s not related to the story.

                      So what I’m suggesting is that you do it at the time, every time, or not at all.

                      And I’m not sure I understand the fear of participation at all.  Yeah, sometimes the posts are torn apart.  Sometimes, I guess, it could be scary.  But we should be held responsible for it.  You as well.

                      So go back through that list and tell me why they are different.  Because more than one reads nearly exactly the same way.  They are personal attacks based on political opinion on whatever random story.

                      Like I said, it’s your site and your reliability you kill.  Good luck with that.

                    1. Your gay rights concern would be awesome were you not a gay-baiting bigot…

                      I’m sorry, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the original post.  At all.  It’s an opinion put in a fairly vile way.  Same as H-man’s crap.

                  3. H-Man defended opposing the “Ground Zero Mosque” because it was insensitive to the 9/11 families.

                    They are “uncomfortable” with the free expression of Islam in the neighborhood where their relatives were killed by some other Muslims.  Blaming the many for the acts of the few is bigotry, unless you have an explanation for why it isn’t- I haven’t heard it.

                    There’s a difference between calling one a piece of shit bigot, and saying they defend bigotry, no?

                    1. I think it’s a breach of netiquette.  But since I’m here…

                      That list was not meant to imply at all that I think everyone up there should be banned or that they don’t add very valuable input.  Some of my favorites happen to be there.

                      Special disclaimer to raymond, who I only used for demonstration purposes.  In both cases (raymond and DP), I would tend to agree.

                      Hopefully no hard feelings all around.  🙂

                    2. doing a search of the word “bigot.”  That’s not the only way to prove you’re guilty of these issues, that just happens to be what I just saw today.

                      You’ve outed nancycronk to the extent she joked about just sending you her resume so you could get the posting of it over with.  And judging by what happened to Steve, breaking apart an obvious name and using the Google is verboten.

                      You repeat rumors that are dangerously close to libel.

                      You post inappropriate, off topic things in the middle of discussions.

                      And nearly all of your posts are pissing matches because you never back anything up, but post just to insist they’re true.

                      I could go on, but it’s pointless.  I know you won’t read it anyway.

                    3. BJ… (vulgar name if I ever saw one) Wilson83 posted all the information that Steve compiled here on this site.  His major, his name, his school.  All of it.  Posted by BJ… (whatever prohibited still in several states, vulgar act that refers to) Wilson83 himself for all to see and search, but not compile and post.

                      I support the suspension first policy, with  the exception of true outings.  

                      But what do I know, I am just a cracker…eater.  Saltines, Triscuits, you name it.  If its crunchy and holds a piece of cheese, I’m all over it.  Like flies on BJ.  

                    1. His account is temporarily on hold. We’re working on a new “suspension” system as a mid-point before a “banning,” and we think you’ll like what we come up with. More details soon.

          2. She quoted the Bible.

            She asked whether Buck would follow those dictates.

            Buck holds several conservative positions based on religious beliefs, including opposition to abortion regardless of circumstances and opposition to gay marriage.

            If his policy decisions are driven by religion, then isn’t it fair to ask how far that extends?

            And while you may disagree, I don’t think tt makes anyone a bigot to attempt to address this. It’s just that it’s your ox getting gored this time.

      2. I admit I am exaggerating here to make a point. Ken Buck was tightly associated with the tea party movement when he was running against Jane Norton. If you google his name with “tea party” you will get many hits supporting that fact. He is also quoted in a number of places spouting his far-right views.

        Ever since he won the nomination, Buck’s website changed and his messaging is more moderate. Interestingly, his official endorsement by a prominant Colorado Tea Party group has also recently been removed. His commercials make him look like an independent. Very slick. He keeps saying publicly that he is “not running” on the anti-abortion platform, although he did not appear afraid of “running on it” several months ago.

        If he is a fundamentalist extremist, fine. I have a number of good friends and relatives who are proud members of the far-right, and I respect them for their convictions (although we disagree on almost everything, we are respectful about those differences). Tom Tancredo is a great example — he seems to love his far-right notariety! Ken Buck is kidding no one to try and look moderate now.

        Far right, far left, or like Bennet — just left of center — I admire people who don’t waiver depending on how the wind happens to be blowing that day. Coloradans need to know what they are getting when they vote. Who is Ken Buck, really?

        We deserve real answers.

        1. Second, it’s not “slick”, it’s common.  That’s what smart politicians do after primaries.  Especially with how the GOP is right now.  You can’t win if you’re not an extreme.

          Third, I appreciate how you’re backpedaling so quickly.  I don’t know who you think you’re fooling, but you seem to be in the clear for some reason.

          1. Pols didn’t say that.

            How am I back pedaling? I am defending myself after being attacked. That is not the same as back pedaling. IMHO, I think half the tea party people are nuts, the other half, good people who are sadly misguided about the real cause of what’s gone wrong with this country. Not only do I admit that, I’ve got my name all over this page.  

            1. I remember.  You’ve whined quite a bit.  And going from that douchey question mark crap to “oh, now I’m aware that not all of you are racist after I made the charge knowing that several posters are in this party and see where someone else was banned for calling me out” is indeed a backpedal.

              Now, genius, did you notice how CoPols didn’t correct me and in fact defended the decision (well, sort of)?  Click on any blue “H-man” on the page.  Where does it go?  Get it now?

              Let me know if you need any more help.

                1. And I think it’s sad to see a death of discourse because someone hurts someone’s feelings.

                  Not that I’m saying he was much for honest discourse, but still.

          2. “You can’t win if you’re not an extreme.” So says droll about the GOP.

            If you’re right, droll, tell me why, exactly, a Democrat, let alone an unaffiliated voter, would want to vote for Mr. Buck or any other of the all-stars (Angle, Miller, Toomey, O’Donnell) the GOP has put up for Senate seats this year?

            And please don’t say something like “they don’t need Democratic votes.” You and I both know that, in many states, a statewide candidate has to draw at least some votes from the other party.

        2. if you continue to exaggerate, how can anyone believe anything you say?

          Crock’s next missive:  Mikey Bennet is a socialist progressive who thinks that what I earn is his to spend.

    4. who cares what the Bible says when it comes to public policy and law?

      We are a secular republic with a Constitution that forbids the establishment of a state religion and bans religious qualifications for public office.

      People are free, and thank God for that, to practice any religion they wish. But our democracy cannot survive if we move in the direction of allowing any one religion to have a monopoly on policy ideas.

      There are wise ideas in the Bible, and dumb ones, too. No surprise there, since it is a book written by human beings.

      It’s a worthy book to study and, for many, an excellent guide to living. But it cannot be the law code for the United States and it should never be the exclusive, or even principal, basis for our elected officials’ decisionmaking or, for that matter, a voter’s choice at the polls.

      1. are wrong.  Read the Ten Commandments.  How many are illegal?  Read Duet. or Leviticus. Which of these are encoded in our system?  The New Testament?  Love your neighbor as yourself?  Judge not?  Look first at the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the splinter in your neighbor’s?  

        But you would make better progress arguing with a brick wall than using logic reason, information or facts on Beej.  

        1. ClubTwitty.

          I have not previously attempted to debate Beej.

          It just strikes me as incredibly obvious to anyone with even a high school education that we can’t simply enshrine the Bible as our legal guiding light.

          But maybe I err.

  3. I know hundreds of Christians personally who don’t believe in fundamentalism. There are millions and millions of them in this country. Religious fundamentalists of all faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.)cause many problems around the world, and I am not afraid to stand up and say I don’t want one as my Senator.

    My faith is strong — faith in a higher power, faith in ahava (love) and shalom (peace) — faith that people know in their hearts what is right, and will do the right thing. Americans don’t need big corporation’s agents and lobbyists dressed in clergy’s clothing telling them how to observe, how to worship, and especially, how to vote.

    Ken Buck can try to pull the wool over the eyes of independent suburban women all over Colorado by pretending he is a moderate for his “margin of victory” goal, but this suburban wife and mother, and all of my intelligent women friends, will never buy it. If it looks like a fundamentalist tea-partier, smells like a fundamentalist tea-partier, and has a history of public appearances indicating he is one — we know it is the real Ken Buck.

    2. so that people of this state are not misled into supporting the radical “conservatism” Mr. Buck would bring to Congress if elected U.S. Senator this fall.

      I don’t have a big disagreement with his passion for a balanced budget. But it seems to me that he is way too far to the right on social issues for most of Colorado’s historically moderate electorate.

  4. is wearing so much make up?  She’s not comfortable with how God made her?  It’s not for men she’s dressed up, she wouldn’t want them to sin.  I guess just out and out vanity.  Sinners.  They are everywhere.

  5. I have to say that the libs on this site have called me worse!  If you want this to be a Daily Kos type blog fine. Just make it a part of your rules that if you have conservative thoughts you can be banned. As long as your personal attacks are against conservatives and you are unrestrained to say anything, use profanity, and even call someone EVIL! (Gasp).

    Your policy is as slanted as your Race Lines!  Absolutely no credibility.  What about the piece of **** that outed me? Was he suspended or banned?  Nope. Because he was a progressive attacking a conservative.

    I’ve had no illusions this site if for any opinions that do not square with the Coloradopols board.  How many conservatives do you have on your board?  

     

      1. if it’s inappropriate.

        Given that you spew crap all day, marilou, it is completely appropriate (and usually long overdue) to call you on it.

        Be a big girl now and stfu.

        1. Those cutesy insults (Mikey, Ralphie baby) are considered the thing to do at that age.

          Somebody retaliated with “Bucky” but I like Kenny better.  All the Kennys I’ve ever known have been dorks.  Ken’s, not so much.

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

85 readers online now

Newsletter

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