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%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

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%

October 11, 2010 06:52 PM UTC

Another Buckpedal; Could there be any more in 22 days?

1 Comments
by: MADCO

Election day is 22 days away.

And Michael Booth, recently discussed reporter for the newspaper of record in Denver, reports that there is another issue that Ken Buck has “clarified” or reversed position since the primary.

Ag subsidies to farmers.

Federally funded, taxpayer funded payments to farmers; wealth transfer to farmers to stabilize agriculture prices.

Link text

I’m not saying ag subsidies are good or bad. This is a complicated subject with a complex history.

They used to be loans, now they are grants.

(I will acknowledge that when people who defend them discuss it, the picture is Ma & Pa farmer huddled in the meager farm house, trying to fight off the winter and worried about taxes but most of the money goes to mega corps like Monsanto, Cargill, etc.)

The point is here is another legislative issue where Primary Buck (PBuck) said one thing, and General Election Buck (GEBuck) says something else. His campaign, and most ardent shills here on CoPols have taken to describing this as “clarifying.” Sort of a traditional euphemism. The rest of us have been describing this a little more creatively as Buckpedalling. The most careful outside observers (MSNBC, NYT, Colorado print and tv media) have been calling it reversing himself, or more gently, “running to the middle.”

PBuck

“I’m against price supports generally,” Buck said, “and I think that’s basically what they’re talking about in the dairy industry.”

An audience member noted, “Dairy’s been price-supported for decades.”

Buck responded: “No doubt. And I’m against price supports generally.”

GEBuck

“…it’s important that our country have domestic sources of energy and food,… (Buck) supports working with farmers to reform the system to help both farmers and taxpayers.”

It’s perhaps the best example yet of the PBuck vs. GEBuck dissonance where the voters just shoose to hear what they like and ignore the statement they don’t like.

From the same Booth article linked above

Eastern Plains Republicans echo Bennet’s words even while supporting Buck.

Out on the eastern plains, and other farming communities in Colorado 15 of 20 voters vote R. And a like number get direct payments and 19 of 20 households understand the value of ag subsidies to their communities and don’t want them cut.

Also can’t cut fuel subsidies, it takes energy to run the modern farm and it’s expensive enough in rural Colorado. Can’t cut transportation spending cause rural Colorado needs roads and bridges and they gotta be maintained.

So PBuck says price supports are a bad idea and need to go. GE Buck says yeah, but not for the hardworking farm communities in Colorado , And once again votes are left to wonder what would IOBuck (in office Buck) do.

Would he stick to his primary ideology, allow the market to do what it does best? Or would it be his general election conversion the gov’t shouldn’t pick winners and losers unless we’re picking my voters to win? Or a third option?

The only thing we know for sure so far is Buck has said whatever it appears the audience in the room wants to hear when they are in the room. Deny the past (“I never said a consumption tax was a good idea” vs. the recording of him saying it was a good idea; alter the past What I meant to say was …..up is down or flat out run from his past statements I support the Personhood amendment vs I’m not commenting on the local issues

Mr. Buck, just tell us what you think and let the voters decide if we agree with you.

This say anything approach and let the voters believe whatever they want is offensive and dishonest.

I know your boots are full of bullshit. But that doesn’t mean you have to be.

One thought on “Another Buckpedal; Could there be any more in 22 days?”

MADCO says:

October 13, 2010 at 3:54 am

And, of course there can be more “clarifying reversals.”

I could have used better choice of words when describing a possible rape to the victim as unwinnable because it would be seen as buyers remorse.

Donut Hole? Ohhhh, that donot hole. Sure, I thought he was talking about something else. I o know what that is and I have strong feelings about what would be the best way to address it. Next question?

Log in to Reply

Login

Lost Password

Another Buckpedal; Could there be any more in 22 days?

Comments

One thought on “Another Buckpedal; Could there be any more in 22 days?”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter