DSCC Swings Into Action Against Buck

The first ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) directly taking on GOP nominee Ken Buck. With a virtual smorgasbord of material for hard-hitting TV spots, they chose to lead off with Buck’s view of the 17th Amendment–discussed recently in this space.

Politics Daily reports this ad is part of a key-state strategy that the DSCC has committed its $22 million war chest to this cycle. Meaning you’ll be seeing a lot of Buck’s less flattering side very soon.

37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. H-man says:

    The US Senator who was selected by one voter, the Governor, is complaining that Buck stated over a year ago, and long disavowed, that the legislature should pick a senator.  That would be a lot more voters than picked Bennet in the first place.

  2. bjwilson83 says:

    This well help Buck pick up some votes. Criticizing Ken as extreme when most Americans think Obama’s agenda is extreme is “extremely” tone deaf.

  3. BlueCat says:

    For one thing it’s a very easy past position to disavow without sustaining damage. Not like having been for path to citienship before you were against it or for choice before you were against it.  It’s not as if a lot of people are focused on this.  

    But as a kick-of to a series of a tons of money fueled shock and awe attack on all of Buck’s more extreme positions, it’s great.  When the next one comes out the ground for seeing this guy as far outside the mainstream will have been prepared. I’m sure there will be a series of ads on various issues to show Buck as someone too extreme for Colorado.

    Since 2004, centrist Dems have been doing increasingly well statewide. Far right GOP candidates, not so much. I see this as just the opening salvo in a very promising ad campaign.

    • H-man says:

      anywhere in Colorado other than on ColoradoPols.

      • ajb says:

        But I suspect that polling proves otherwise. If I had the time, I’d go check the google.

        • H-man says:

          Predictably, most Republicans view Obama’s views as extreme, while a sizable majority of Democrats say they are mainstream. But most voters not affiliated with either party also describe the president’s views as extreme by a 54% to 30% margin.

          Eighty-one percent (81%) of liberals say Obama’s in the mainstream. Seventy-five percent (75%) of conservatives regard him as extreme.

      • BlueCat says:

        That puts Bennet closer to centrist in popular perception.  I’m not even going to argue here about how centrist Bennet is or isn’t.  I’m talking about an ad campaign and I think it’s starting off on the right track to get the job done.  

        The proof will be in the final poll, the election.  If Bennet wins, he’s centrist enough for Colorado voters regardless of any national polls or what anyone has to say about Obama or about Bennet’s voting record.  If Buck wins, the people of Colorado will have proclaimed him not to be too extreme.  

        My money’s on Bennet winning that war. I like his campaign operation, its strategic and tactical skill set and infrastructure, especially for GOTV, strong support from DSCC and enough  funding from all the major sources to say “make it so” to whatever is deemed necessary at the moment, including quick counter attacks wherever needed.  

  4. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Yes most people will disagree with this, but I don’t see it being a biggie. On the flip side, this early it’s only use political nuts paying attention and it matters a bit more to us. So maybe they’re starting with the issues that will only matter to us.

    • BlueCat says:

      It’s kind of a head scratching attention getter.   The reaction is probably why would anybody be against the people voting for Senators?  What the heck is this all about? As I said, by itself it isn’t a biggie but it should arouse some curiosity, especially as most don’t know Senators ever were supposed to be elected by state legislatures.

      And it is a head scratcher as a rightie and or teaparty side of the electorate issue. After all, it’s the right that has been pushing to take so many things out of the hands of state legislators and subject them to direct vote by the people as state constitutional amendments, propositions, referenda etc.  Most of those originating on the left have been in self defense against the barrage from the right.  Who would think that ending direct voting on Senators would be a crowd pleaser with anysignificant chunk of the electorate? Maybe Barron’s ACP?

      When the next ad comes out on social security or no abortion even for child victims of incestuous rape, hopefully while people are still scratching their heads over this one, people will already be primed to think that this guy seems prone to some pretty out there ideas.

      If the DSCC keeps supplying the attack ads, Bennet can do plenty of positives and warm fuzzies.  Looks to me like part of a good plan.

  5. SSG_Dan says:

    and start pouring all the money that Michael Steele raised into this election!

    Oh, wait….  

  6. hoovman says:

    So I haven’t posted here much, but here we go. I am Republican. I do not work on any campaign.

    I don’t think the repeal of the 17th Amendment (repeal of an amendment, NOT a rewrite of the Constitution) is so much an indication of distrust of the voters. But it allows the senator to NOT be accountable to the citizens — not necessarily a bad thing. There were two distinct chambers on purpose – one representing the people, and the other representing the states. A good idea back in the day. Still a good idea today. When senators are not running for re-election and are therefore only accountable to the states, more pragmatic and better policy will result. Or at least the policies that simply pander to the public (e.g. pork barrel projects) will presumably be killed in the Senate at a higher rate.

    And this is not to mention the role that special interests play in the election of senators. This influence would also be cut out in the upper chamber, or at least minimized. Dare I say that Romanoff could/should be a huge champion of repealing the 17th?

    The Progressives played the largest role in passing the 17th Amendment, fueled by many states’ inability to elect a senator due to split control in the legislature. There were instances of states going several years without a senator due to partisan deadlock. A better solution to this problem is to allow individual states the ability to reform their process for electing senators through the legislature. Rather than passing a one-size-fits-all constitutional amendment (though admittedly all but 2 (I think) states ratified the amendment eventually).

    As a matter of policy, I don’t think advocating for the repeal of the 17th Amendment is extreme or radical. At least having an honest debate could be productive. I’ve studied this issue a lot from the policy perspective. That might bore a lot of people on this site. I might put this debate in relation to another Progressive policy – direct democracy through citizen initiative. No matter left or right, we can agree that direct democracy has given our state some bad policies.

    The point is that we do not live in a democracy, and we were never intended to be a democracy. Moving to a purer form of democracy isn’t always a good idea if one actually thinks about the unintended consequences.

    As a political matter, it’s easy to paint this as some crazy, right-wing, radical idea.  Which is too bad. I also understand the possibility of repealing the 17th in my lifetime is zero. Which is also too bad.

    Democrat Zell Miller – “The U.S. Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests and so impotent an eighteen wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good. … It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect U.S. senators and then hold them in bondage forever. In the past five election cycles, senators have raised over $1.5 billion for their election contests, not counting all the soft money spent on their behalf in other ways. Few would believe it, but the daily business of the Senate is actually scheduled around fundraising. The 17th Amendment was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected.”

  7. …nice try, but this ad is gonna fall on deaf ears

    I just don’t see it inciting the scrutiny that the Dems are hoping it will – one well written press release from the Buck campaign will take the wind out of the sails on this one…

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.