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
October 07, 2010 09:23 PM UTC

Buckpedaling gains momentum and scrutiny by media

  • 6 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(We’ve said it a million times before — it’s always worse to be labeled a “flip-flopper” than to try to massage your positions on different issues in order to try to appeal to more people. This “Buckpedaling” has really gotten ridiculous, and it’s going to hurt him with voters as the media picks up on it more. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Ken Buck is having second thoughts on yet another issue, The Denver Post reports today.

This time, it’s the consumption tax, which Buck called “great” during the GOP primary but now says was “never my alternative,” according to The Post.

We all like a person, especially if she is your wife but even if he is a political candidate, who’s willing to change his or her opinion.

But The Post is reporting on different positions Buck is taking now versus the primary.

It’s one thing to consider new information and make a change. It’s another to take a position to appeal to one group of people (right-wing GOP primary voters) and change it to appeal to another group of people (average everyday angry voters).

In this case, whether you’re the angry right winger or the average angry voter, you’re wondering whether Buck will say anything to get elected.

That’s why Buck’s recent changes are important, and why media outlets like The Post deserve credit for spotlighting them for us.

In today’s article, The Post reviewed three other issues, on which Buck has flipped since the primary:

Personhood. He supported it during the primary, briefly came out against it, and now says he’s neutral, but is still in favor of personhood “as a concept.”

Pro-choice judges. During the primary, Buck said he wouldn’t confirm “pro-abortion” candidates for any federal job, including judges. Now Buck will confirm pro-choice nominees.



Anti-abortion legislation. During the primary, Buck promised to sponsor anti-abortion legislation. Now he won’t.

Now that Buck is establishing a record of backtracking, The Post and other media outlets should offer readers a wider view of his before/after primary positions. The expansive list includes:

Privatizing Social Security. During the primary, Buck says “the private sector runs programs like [health care and retirement] far better” than the federal government.  Now the Buck campaign says, “Ken is not in favor of privatizing Social Security,” and we have to keep a “promise” to seniors and maintain the program, with tweaks including privatization and a higher retirement age for younger people.

Constitutionality of Social Security. During the primary, Buck said he was “not sure” about the constitutionality of major federal programs passed over the past 70 or 80 years. Now he says he’s “never had doubts” about the constitutionality of Social Security.

Privatization of Medicare. During a primary debate (Mike Rosen 7-19-10), Buck said he supports “privatizing as many of the areas of health care as possible, including the decisions of folks that are on Medicare.” Now he tells the New York Times that he hasn’t “decided whether some form of vouchers would work or not.”

Department of Education. During the primary, to select audiences, Buck advocated shutting it down immediately, while he did not say this to other audiences. Now he consistently says it should be cut back, not shut down now.

Common forms of birth control. Consistent with his position during the primary, the Buck campaign told 9News that he’s against common forms of birth control that prevent implantation, such as IUDs as well as some forms of the Pill. Now he says he is “not in favor of banning any common forms of birth control in Colorado.” (But still opposes killing fertilized eggs, which are killed by common forms of birth control.)

Social Issues. (See above.)

Consumption tax. (See above.)

News outlets like The Post, Associated Press, Grand Junction Sentinel, and others have covered Buck’s before/after primary stances on a case-by-case basis, but I’d like to see more reporting that brings all these issues together, a bit like Buck’s interview with New York Times reporter John Harwood here, and delves more deeply into why Buck staked out the positions he did initially and why he is changing his views post-primary on some issues and not others.

Tweet
Share

Comments

6 thoughts on “Buckpedaling gains momentum and scrutiny by media”

  1. Buck campaign HQ this morning upon viewing the Post’s bold, above-the-fold banner headline on the front-page of “DENVER & THE WEST,” that stretched from the left margin to the right margin:

    “Buck reverses on goods tax”

    Sub-headline:

    “The candidate now says a consumption levy isn’t smart.”

    Even more dramatic was the HUMONGOUS, SOLID BLACK AP reverse-screen photo illustration placed smack in the middle of the Buck story, making it appear that Buck had been charged with a capital crime.

    ###

    As reminder, Denver mails out its absentee ballots on Oct. 12.  Early voting begins at 13 locations on Oct. 18.  151 assigned polling places open at 7 a.m. on Nov. 2.  I’m not sure of the other counties.

    I’m going to enjoy this!

     

  2. At the risk of revealing what I read for actual news –  

    the NYT  is also reporting  Buck’s reversals today.  

    But whether Mr. Buck is out of touch, or exactly in touch with his supporters, he has staked out some very conservative positions. He has suggested, for example, that Social Security and health care could perhaps be better handled by the private sector. (Though he later said he opposed privatizing Social Security.)

    He also endorsed a ballot measure, Amendment 62, which would confer legal rights to “every human being from the beginning of biological development.” That endorsement opened him up to charges that he wants to make some common forms of contraception illegal, including birth control pills, which can hinder the attachment of embryos to the uterine wall.

    Mr. Buck, a county district attorney north of Denver who is backed by the Tea Party, recently withdrew his endorsement of the “personhood” amendment, and now takes no position. His spokesman, Mr. Loftus, said at least three times in a telephone interview that Mr. Buck did not want to ban birth control pills.

    And I think Jason Salzman has already asked the question – if borth control pills inhibit or affect the fertilized egg, not prevent fertilization, then wouldn’t Buck favor prohibition of birth control polls?

    It is clear  what the Buck campaign’s strategy has been to date:

    – run to the right during the primary, cater to the tea party, say anything to anyone to make them happy.

    – count on outside support for the heavy lifting of slamming his R opponent

    [  primary day ]

    – take down the far right positions from the web site

    – run to the middle, say anything to anyone to make them happy.

    – count on outside support to spend the big money doing the black hat crazy negative lying about Senator Bennet.

    [  Oct 1 ]

    Hide and run the stealth campaign counting on the R after his name to carry the day.

    So is he consistent on anything?  Sure: say anything to anyone and for the resulting dissonance count on voters’ to ignore whatever they hope is just “politics” and remember only the stuff they like.

    Seriously- I have a neighbor who believes Medicare, and all Dept of Defense and VA healthcare should be privatized.  He likes Buck because Buck said that in July. He knows Buck has backed away, but he chooses to believe what he heard in July and concludes Buck is just saying this now because otherwise he’d get slammed in the election.

    So the important question is whether he is consistent on any significant policy issue?  

    We can’t be sure because what he says now and what he said before are sometimes 180Вє different. ANd sometimes, as shown above and previously, he flat out denies ever had said something he was video recorded saying.

    What we can conclude is that most likely either he is a liar telling lies or he has no firmly held convictions and will say whatever is politically convenient at the time.   Or both.  

    The one other, highly unlikely, possibility is that he’s all about nuance and as his campaign has progressed, his positions have been refined and developed even to the point of reversal.

  4. His commerials are scary. He’s playing good cop bad cop with the 527’s. Of course I know that he cannot coordinate with them. Nevertheless, it looks that way. The 527’s run attack ads while Buck runs an old lady saying what a nice guy Buck is,  so vote for home.

    The loomng FEC compliant won’t be done in time. This will be a very close race.

    Everyone knows that I support Michael Bennet. But I think the barrage of attack ads coupled with the “aw shucks” I’m just a guy that wears cowboy boots, kicks bullcrap,and old ladies like me,  has played far better than I would have expected.

    Facts don’t resonate too well in 30 second sound bites.

    We do know that he went to a high powerd undergrad school, worked for Dick Cheney in 1986, and was ordered into mandatory ethics classes. He has no problem abrogating the rights of US taxpayers in seizures of records.

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

66 readers online now

Newsletter

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