U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 30, 2010 01:05 AM UTC
9 Comments
Buck’s position was that harassment never happened, or if it did it appeared like the woman (women) who made the complaint invited it, or that even if it happened, and the woman (women) never did anything to encourage it, the case couldn’t be proven.
No way “Angela M” is anyone who has ever experienced discrimination.
Hint: She doesn’t want to be victimized again, and she doesn’t want her future employment prospects damaged by her being labeled as a complainer.
No means no. The public does not have the “right to know” this woman’s private business. It’s not her fault that her former non-elected boss later decided to run for office. His life is an open book because of that decision, not hers. You and the CDP are sleazy for pushing this fishing expedition.
And even though you can’t stand me, I have immense respect for you keeping it real on this issue, among other things.
But this isn’t right at all.
As a senator, Ken Buck would have the opportunity to shape policies that relate directly to discrimination (against women and others).
As a senator, Ken Buck would have the power to drive policy that is discriminatory in nature.
As a senator, Ken Buck would be tasked with representing those who has a history of mistreating.
We have a clear interest in knowing the full truth about this guy, who is a very untested commodity. From his comments about gays, to rape victims, to afghans, to so many other things, it seems like when he actually speaks his mind and expresses what he thinks, it is something seriously reprehensible.
If these allegations are true – and given the amount of noise around them, I’m at least open to the possibility – then he doesn’t deserve to hold any office here. If they aren’t, then he should have addressed them in 2004, or earlier this year. The fact that he continues to dodge these questions is the only reason I’m granting validity to this. It would be so easy to prove wrong, that if it was false, he would have done it. Since he hasn’t, well, I think he needs to start answering these questions. Now.
Having a functioning moral compass isn’t noble, it’s normal.
Buck’s already demonstrated ethics problems have a body count. Your justifications for risking a woman’s privacy do not impress me.
I should have been more clear, I think it’s a noble-minded thought, though it is neither noble nor normal. It is deeply misguided.
I don’t know the substance of what we’re talking about here. In fact, you seem to know more about it than I. But nonetheless, this is a serious issue that should be discussed.
Ken Buck’s record on something like this would obviously be important to the millions of people whose lives he will impact. It would be important for the same reason that Walter Stapleton’s DUI or so many of the criminal records of house and senate candidates are important: because – in a way that rhetoric never will – it would betray the character of Ken Buck. And if these issues are serious, this man who does not belong in the Senate. At all.
Buck helped in efforts to diversify the office and was commended by both Janet Reno and Eric Holder for his efforts.
That doesn’t exactly go along with the Dem slander campaign.
Would the dems like to compare unsupported rumors?
Try googling Michael Bennet and affairs and see what you get?
Haven’t seen that unsupported rumor front paged on ColoradoPols.
Just the Dem “Buck has an EEOC file” unsupported rumor.
Your baseless smear isn’t. You should be banned for continuing to say that stuff.
Giving directions on a google search is worthy of suspension now or are you trying to silence another conservative viewpoint. I thought you libs had a front page diary blabbing about the bill Clinton requesting people being banned?