It’s a Fine Line Between Crazy & Extreme or How to Buck-Track on the Issues

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Primaries bring out the crazy in politics, sort of like family feuds around the holiday dinner table. But the primaries are now behind us and candidates like Ken Buck will begin their “low crawl”” back to the middle. And we can begin having fun with all our new words: buck-tracking, buck-pedaling,  

The frenzy and lunacy of the Tea Party movement got behind Buck, who is now saying he was NEVER a Tea Party candidate. Huh? Let’s not forget that Buck owes much of his success to the national backing of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who raised money and support for Buck. Didn’t they invent political crazy in South Carolina?

So the question is: Is Ken Buck crazy or just extreme? Let’s review some of his best hits before you decide:

• Buck called the Department of Education “unnecessary and unconstitutional.” (Colorado Statesman, 1/22/10)

• Buck said that Social Security is a “horrible” public policy. (Republican U.S. Senate debate, Colorado Springs, June 29, 2010)

• “We would be much better off with a closer relationship between church and state.” Buck said on the Jim Pfaff radio show on May 21, 2010.

• “We need to make sure that the American public remembers the global warming nonsense that is going on and how now, over and over, it’s being disproved,” said Ken Buck at the Liberty Forum, February 21, 2010.

• “I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother,” Ken Buck told supporters in Meeker, Colorado on August 2, 2010.

• Buck also supports Amendment 62, a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give fertilized eggs constitutional rights and ban many common forms of contraception. An almost identical measure was defeated two years ago by Colorado voters 73-27%.

Buck now says he doesn’t remember many of these comments, that they were taken out of context or he just said them during the heat of the primary battle.  Fortunately, they’re all in print or on digital audio or video. So that trip back to the middle is now a voyage.

So – your choice – crazy or just extreme?  

Is Ken Buck Crazy or Extreme?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

0 Shares

37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

      • Ralphie says:

        Don’t try to make sense.  It’s just random spew.

      • bjwilson83 says:

        If you say no, it implies that you were beating your wife at one time. Similarly, Buck is neither crazy or extreme, but mainstream. I love how you guys think cap and trade is mainstream, but it’s not. Most of the world moved on after Climategate, it’s funny (and sad) to watch Dems babble on about a made up doomsday. And they call right wingers conspiracy theorists!

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          segments you turn the channel. It seems that everyday the meteorologists are telling us how it’s been hotter than it’s ever been since they’ve started tracking temperatures.

          I know that may not be scientific but it’s what regular people are hearing every day all across the country. They are also watching stories about flooding in Pakistan, a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan breaking off of Greenland, a dramatic increase in hurricanes and severe storms, Russia on fire, etc. These people don’t give a shit about “Climategate” or research at all. They probably don’t think much about climate change specifically, but it sits in their subconscious as they see these powerful images.

          Democrats don’t have to “babble” about climate change. And you’re even more of an idiot than I previously thought if you think “most of the world moved on after Climategate”. Do you think the millions that are homeless in Pakistan due to floods have “moved on”? How about the flash flood victims currently in Louisiana and Mississippi or the previous ones in Nashville? The millions that experienced freakishly hot weather along the East Coast this summer?

          BJ – Just because you wish something would go away doesn’t mean it will. After all you’re still here and Steve is gone despite all my wishes. You need to deal with the reality that just because Fox or CNN isn’t covering it, doesn’t mean John and Jane Doe aren’t sitting around their kitchen tables talking about how fucking hot it is and what it could mean.

  1. Go Blue says:

    what is he good for? absolutely nothing.  

  2. dwyer says:

    the hell is ahead of Bennet in the polls????

          • Pam Bennett says:

            or the version of the Constitution that was not written but relied on by the Republican for their version of the world?

          • dwyer says:

            I am sorry.  I know you would like to win this argument, but your reasoning is circular.  The Constitution of the United States does NOT define what size the federal government is “supposed to be.”  Did you know that?  I didn’t think so.

            The Constitution spells out the powers of the individual branches of the federal government.  It limits that power by the first 10 amendments, as amended by subsequent amendments and Supreme Court interpretations.   But, for example, the commerce clause is not defined other than to see that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.  That has allowed Congress to regulate tools and technology which did not even exist at the time the Constitution was written.  Did you know that this country did not have steam ships, railroads, airplanes or cars when the Constitution was ratified?

            Duh.  That is so sad.  You really want to participate and I think probably are well meaning and not unintelligent.  But you have not been educated to have the tools you need to participate in a meaningful way on this blog.

            • bjwilson83 says:

              The Constitution spells out exactly what powers the federal government is allowed to have. Obama has pushed the power of the federal government way beyond that. Nowhere does the Constitution say that government can take over private companies and industries (cars, health care, banks, etc.)

              • Ralphie says:

                G.W. Bush holds the record for pushing the power of the executive.

                But you were still breastfeeding when that happened.

              • dwyer says:

                The Federal government did “not” take over the automobile industry.  General Motors went into bankrupcy and the money, etc., given to the company was approved by the GM board of directors and the court.  What don’t you understand about the power to regulate interstate commerce???

                Congress passed the health care legislation.  Congress is a branch of the federal government, but the executive (Obama) did not  “push” the federal government to take over health care.  There are some legitimate concerns (which I do not share)about the constitutionality  of the insurance mandate.  That is being challenged in the court system…that is how the constiution demands that we resolve constitutional issues.

                You are being specific about identifying your concerns.  But, you are not looking at the actual law/constitution and basing your concerns on that.  In our system, the constitution consists of the original document, all the amendments and the court decisions interpreting all the laws.

                You know, the legal system in this country is a work of art.  You, I think, would really appreciate studying it under a good professor.  

                • bjwilson83 says:

                  The legal system may be a work of art but it’s rigged to benefit the rich and powerful. I probably would enjoy studying it but alas, there’s only so much time in one lifespan and I chose math. Finally, the “regulate interstate commerce” and “provide for the general welfare” terms do not encompass half of what Obama has done. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how badly liberals have distorted their meaning.

                  • dwyer says:

                    Maybe somebody here, (Voyageur?) can recommend a reading list on the Constitution.  I think you would benefit from it.  You are an American and you are obviously frustrated and concerned about our country.  But, rather than making sound arguments, you fall back on tired old cliches, because you don’t know how the system works. You keep trying to solve the equation and you come up with x=x.


                    The legal system may be a work of art but it’s rigged to benefit the rich and powerful. …The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how badly liberals have distorted their meaning.

                    The founding fathers were, of course, rich and powerful. To a remarkable degree, the constitution was “rigged” to allow them to keep their power…which derived from property..including slaves.  Read Beard’s “Economic HIstory of the United States.”

                    I would love to know Jefferson’s reaction to a mulatto in the White House, for example.

                    Finally, the “regulate interstate commerce” and “provide for the general welfare” terms do not encompass half of what Obama has done

                    What you have done is cite your opinion as if it were fact. Think of your statement as a geometric

                    theorem.  Then step by step, attempt to prove it.

                    You have been cheated by your teachers.  And you have been exploited by the right wing wind machine.  You have been fed crap.

    • BlueCat says:

      I’m underwhelmed. Besides. Remember the polling shortly before the primary with Romanoff ahead?  Remember the 8 point victory that was supposed to be a nail biter? Bennet finishes well.

      • dwyer says:

        It had Bennet by six. At least, I think it was PPP, maybe another one…but it was dead on.  SEE.  Gallup stopped polling a week before the 1948 election and had Dewey by a landslide.  The trend changed in the closing days of the campaign and everyone missed it, and Truman scored one of the biggest upsets in American political history…until Scott Brown. Do I remember 1948. As a matter of fact, I do.  

        so what are you saying BC?  Not too worry because the polling is not accurate?  There is no poll which has had Bennet beating Buck….since before the primary with “theoretical match ups.”

        I am also concerned about the “hickenlooper cannot lose” mantra. Particularly coming from the repubs.  I remember how Scot Brown came from behind and under the radar to win…because “everybody” believed that no repub could take Kennedy’s seat.

        I say, dems…..don’t be superior and overconfident.

        • BlueCat says:

          Money talks. That’s both the major reason why the infusion of money for negative TV ads gave Romanoff a big last minute push and why Bennet could do so much effective pushback in so short a time and finished so well the nail biting looked pretty uncalled for in the end.  Maes will have next to nothing. Bennet will have as much as he needs to spend. See his chances as pretty good. Think the Big Line has it about right.

          Not advocating over-confidence but don’t see the current polls as cause for panic or extreme dismay. Not saying this is just the same as the primary and that Bennet will beat Buck by close to 9 points either.  As for Hick, it will indeed be hard for him to lose, even if Tank pulls out, what with the Wadhams GOP machine itself labeling Maes an unqualified no hoper.

          Have your favorite drink and don’t exactly relax but don’t be go into a major depression either. That’s all

          • dwyer says:

            Thanks for the advice.  I don’t ever hit the computer unless I am half soused, anyway.

            • BlueCat says:

              You brought in the Hick/Maes race, warning us not to take that one for granted either and I was talking about the prospects of  all four parties to the two races and didn’t order it all that well.  I should have been more clear but you see I do refer to the chances for Bennet beating Buck and Hick beating Maes.

              I meant that Bennet won with the huge money advantage in his primary and will continue to have great funding so his chances still seem pretty good while Maes, in his race, will have next to nothing, another reason why over confidence strikes me as even less of a problem for the Maes/Hick contest. Besides his own party leaders constantly telling us what a lousy pick Maes is.  

    • VanDammer says:

      but what polls are you citing?  If it’s Rasmussen, well then it’s not really worth a response.  

  3. shrubHugger says:

    So if this passes (totally hypothetical) and if we give fertilized eggs all the same rights as American Citizens… wouldn’t this lead to a mass influx of illegals coming to Colorado just to get knocked up?

    I mean talk about sanctualry city, this is more like sanctuary wombs! You would think any Repub worth his salt would do anything in their power to limit those darn civil rights we so liberally hand out to Gay Anchor Terror Mexican Babies..now  we’re gonna have a bunch of Gay Terror Mexican Fetus’ on our hands.

    Awesome.

    *I’m no legal expert.. someone should ask Mr. Buckwit (with a straight face please)he’s a lawyer afterall.  

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.