Talk-radio show does great job of illuminating Buck as a deep social conservative

(Great listing of the Buck interview – promoted by DavidThi808)

Talk radio can put you in the middle of a political worldview that’s completely foreign, with an intimacy and intensity that some people can’t stand. That’s understandable, but it’s also unfortunate because there’s a lot to be learned from radio talk shows.

My own world is almost completely void of social conservatives. So I like listening to them on talk shows. Not always, of course, but sometimes, especially if they have interesting guests, like U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck.

If you’ve been following my blog, you know that recently I’ve enjoyed listening to Jim Pfaff, who holds the social-conservative flag over at 560 KLZ.

So after Buck won on Tuesday, and I abruptly had to stop writing about media lapses and triumphs relating to Scott McInnis, I turned to Pfaff’s radio show to find out more about how Buck operates in the social conservative world.

Talk radio generally is a great place to learn about candidates, and Pfaff’s show on Buck, which aired May 21, did not disappoint. In about an hour, Pfaff pretty much provided his listeners with everything they might want to know about Buck’s views on social-conservative issues.

In a year when Colorado Republicans started out promising to stay focused on the economy Pfaff boldly told Buck:

Pfaff: “These social issues, like marriage, these are critical issues. It has been one of the great weaknesses of the Republican Party not to deal with these critical issues.”

Buck: “I agree with you that I think it has been a weakness of the Republican Party in the United States Senate, and I think it’s time that we look at the people we are sending back to Washington DC and making sure those people are sticking by the values they espouse on the campaign trail.”

A host like Pfaff doesn’t just ask about Buck’s position on Roe V. Wade. He goes beyond it, asking Buck: “Let’s say we overturn Roe V. Wade. What should we do to address the issue of abortion nationally, if anything?”

Buck responded: “I think it is a federal issue. You know, you look at the founding documents, and one of them is the Declaration of Independence. And it clearly states that among our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And life to me means life, and life begins at conception. So we need to honor that in how we deal with the federal government. Others would insist these are issues for the state legislatures and they certainly would have a role in that but I think the federal government has to guarantee life.”

Asked by Pfaff about the Supreme Court, Buck said:

“I think those Supreme Court Justices really need to be scrutinized. They’ve got to have a record, and we’ve got to probe to make sure we know exactly what they are going to act like on the Supreme Court. I am a strict constructionist, and I believe strongly that we need to make sure Supreme Court justices and other judges are not legislating from the bench.”

If you’re like me, you might not even think about where a candidate stands on religious freedom. So you might learn something completely unexpected when Pfaff asks Buck about this, and Buck says he questions the application of “separation of church and state” and argues for a vague “coexistence between government and religion.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Pfaff establishes that Buck opposes same-sex marriage and “would certainly be in favor” of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if required, to ensure that states like Colorado don’t have to “acknowledge” gay marriages from other states, like perhaps Massachusetts.

So in less than an hour, in one obscure interview, you get mostly up to speed on Buck’s positions on social issues. Every one of Buck’s answers apparently satisfied Pfaff, which tells you, if you’re a Pfaff listener, that Buck is a five-star social conservative. This comports with Buck’s nine-out-of-ten rating by the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado, which, among other things, claims Buck supports the “public posting of the ten commandments,” but he lost points by not answering the question of whether he supports adoption by gay couples.

Along with gay adoption, I found a few items Pfaff didn’t cover. These were Buck’s support of the Personhood Amendment, his opposition to abortion without exceptions for rape and incest (which Buck announced later), and his view that, actually, “we could be much better off with a closer relationship between church and state” but without state-sponsored religion.  (Colorado Right to Life pointed to Buck’s primary win as the “biggest victory” for Personhood in Tuesday’s results.)

So here’s my advice. If you want to learn about our surprising new GOP candidates, or a Democrat or an American Constitutionalist, and do it in a lazy and entertaining way, listen to a podcast or two.


28 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Gray in Mountains says:

    I don’t get to hear any of these shows because they aren’t received in the high country. I appreciate the report.

    Recently, while traveling, I listened to Glenn Beck (about 10 minutes) and Sean Hannity (about 5 minutes). Neither of them seemed to demonstrate any of the depth that you report from Pfaff

    • bjwilson83 says:

      alternate between humor and serious commentary. So if you listened to just a few minutes of their shows, you can hardly make a judgement on the depth of their intellect.

      • LakewoodTodd says:

        I’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh for 20 years and Beck and Hannity since they came on the scene. So, for more than 5 or 10 minutes.

        Limbaugh is a clown, a supreme entertainer. But mostly, he creates his own facts or skates on very thin ones. I would give him credit for  intellect based on the fact that, in his early years, he did a great job of staying close enough to reality to make him seem credible. No longer.

        Hannity is such a demogogue that it seems hard to give him credit for intellect. He will see a forest and claim that it is a lake if it suits his view. Forget about the trees.

        And Beck is just a raving lunatic. Of the three, he is completely devoid of intellect. But with a twist. He tries to portray himself as a thinker. (Like most of his ilk, the word “intellect” is held in disdain.) He is what happens when you clone the original one time too many. Any substance that was once there is lost in jumble of crazy mutations.  

      • Gray in Mountains says:

        Serious commentary? Only for drunken idiots who might fall for the extreme BS they spout  

        • rocco says:

          While Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz, Cunningham, and local yokels Rosen, Caldara and Caplis do broadcast to an audience predisposed to be very conservative, one of their every day drumbeat misinformation messages is definately resonating.

          Today I saw on that 47% of Americans polled believe that President Obama signed the original TARP legislation, as opposed to 34% that know it was signed by Bush.

          While I don’t take anything any of these charlatans say seriously, some people do, and are passing it on.

          They’re sleazy, true enough. But they’re doing the job they’re paid to do.


  2. bjwilson83 says:

    alternate between humor and serious commentary. So if you listened to just a few minutes of their shows, you can hardly make a judgement on the depth of their intellect.

  3. 1854 GOP says:

    Buck attracts 46% support, while Bennet picks up 41% of the vote. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) remain undecided.

  4. dwyer says:

    He is separating himself out from the republican pack on the issue of abortion.  The Republican pack are using the abortion issue to pursue states’ rights.  In another words, they argue that roe v. wade was decided wrongly because abortion is a medical matter and should rightly be decided by the individual states, under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.  I believe that Colorado’s own Wizzer White argued this in his dissenting opinion to Roe.  

    Buck is, I believe, correct to argue that a right to life or a right to abortion should be in the realm of civil rights and therefore belong to the provence of the federal government.

    This position is really contrary to the current standard republican argument that abortion should be left to the states.   However to say that abortion is “a federal issue,” and then to support the personhood amendment to a state constitution is hypocritical and he should be called on it.  

    • Yokel says:

      Reminds me of an interesting article I read regarding the history of the 14th Amendment as it refers to economic liberty and rights.  

      I’m not sure a party that supports restricting the rights of persons to enter into a contract with minimum wage laws, or excuses an abomination of property rights like Kelo v. New London is entirely clean when it comes to defense of the 14th Amendment.  

      Personally, I’d repeal the 16th and 17th, and put them both in a nice trifecta of Constitutional errors of the Progressive Era with the 18th.  But I’m a conservative, or, simply, “crazy,” as those who use talking points from a DSM IV written by Keith Olbermann might call me.  

      • dwyer says:

        No matter.  I personally don’t like Kelo v. New London.  However, we do things a certain way in this country within a constitutional framework.  The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the Constitution says.  If you don’t like it, you don’t “repeal” citing “Constitutional error”…whatever the hell that is.   However, I will add it to my radio show propaganda talking points and I thank you for that.  What you do is work on passing constitutional amendments which will have the effect of repealing or amending previous amendments.

        Personally, I’d repeal the 16th and 17th, and put them both in a nice trifecta of Constitutional errors of the Progressive Era with the 18th

        So work on it, instead of complaining.  Form a committee, put up a website, go on the boyles show and demand that Congress pass a law to “eliminate the 16th, 17th, the 18th” as well as reverse Marberry v. Madison.

        Now are you daring to suggest that I am somehow parroting DSM IV…whatever the hell that is???  If so, sir, you owe me an apology.  That is a dastardly comment.  I think my own thoughts and post my own philosophy.

        I also like Keith Olbermann.  However, I think he has vastly underestimated Ken Buck.

        • Yokel says:

          Just venting poetic about the idiotic new left-wing talking points.  The “Conservatives are Morons” trope lasted a hundred years.  I guess they’re changing it up and saying “Conservatives are Insane” now.  

          You seriously don’t know what the DSM IV is?  Use the Google, my friend.  

          • Middle of the Road says:

            DSM IV is the official manual that diagnoses mental disorders.

            You could have just told her, Yokel.

            And yes, I agree with you–calling people insane because of their ideological political differences doesn’t exactly elevate the conversation. I don’t think Republicans are insane. I do think your political ideology is contradictory in more than a few areas and for the most part, polar opposite of what I believe in and want for the future.  

            • Yokel says:

              I apologize.  It was just one of those things I figured most people were at least somewhat familiar with.  

              What’s contradictory in conservative ideology, in your opinion?  

              • Middle of the Road says:

                The Republican Party and some of its members, representatives, et al, consistently espouse the belief that a limited government, combined with a balanced budget, will make America stronger. Many state party platforms also explicitly state positions on abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage and have made their beliefs on social issues central to who they nominate to represent their districts.

                Fiscal responsibility: Republicans espouse fiscal responsibility and yet, to pay for not one but two wars, cut taxes for the upper class. How do you pay for two wars off the books with no money? You run up the deficit.

                The lowest income, the poorest amongst us have paid the bill and the ultimate price for these wars. The average person, including me, hasn’t felt the pinch at all. I watched our federal deficit skyrocket under Bush’s administration. Hard for me to take Republicans seriously when now they start worrying about the budget, when they were primarily responsible for running us into the red.


                When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion.

                Capital punishment-Republicans espouse limited interference from government but strongly support the right of the State to kill someone. You cannot get anymore involved, at any level in government, than when you choose to take someone’s life. Conversely, the Republican Party espouses that they are “pro life” and that all life is sacred. Ironic, no?

                Healthy Forest Initiatives: This plan does the opposite of its feel good title. It thins out federally owned forests while eliminating the necessity of an ESI for up to a thousand acres of timber and creating new debris that makes great kindling in a fire. Makes big bucks for timber contractors but leaves our forests even more vulnerable to inevitable natural forest fires.

                Far worse, the Republican Administration gutted 33% of the National Park budget during the Bush years-these are public, federal lands that are now being primarily run by retired volunteers. I see this as a colossal failure of Republicans to be good stewards of the land.

                The Clear Skies Initiative: Initially, some great ideas were included in this proposal, including the idea to reduce certain pollutants through a cap and trade program. When the bill stalled, Bush implemented certain features of the bill, including mercury trading. Ironically, what he implemented actually increased pollutants, including 42 million MORE tons than proposed by the EPA. It also delayed smog standards until 2015.

                My biggest issues with the above, other than what I have stated, is that this type of legislating costs us far more in the long run which again makes me question where the “fiscal responsibility” is.

                Extending unemployment benefits, passing the stimulus package, TARP (passed by George W Bush on October 3, 2008) to keep the economy from crashing–almost all Republicans voted no on these measures without offering up any alternative ideas that wouldn’t have put us further into a depression.

                That’s a few for me–what a Party espouses they believe in doing for their citizens doesn’t measure up to what they have done at all. Actions speak louder than words.

                Sorry for the length and thanks much for asking me, Yokel.  

  5. Yokel says:

    Although I can tell you don’t agree with his points, you did a good job of not letting that get too deeply in the way of your analysis.  

    Except you might have noted that he’s just a politician running for office, and his job is to give the people what they want until he does.  You know, the basic stuff like “know your audience,” which it seems he did here.  

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.