CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Bob Gardner

50%↑

40%↑

10%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 18, 2010 06:18 PM UTC

John Harwood interviews Ken Buck

  • 41 Comments
  • by: H-man

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

John has an extensive informal interview with Ken in Greeley:

Comments

41 thoughts on “John Harwood interviews Ken Buck

  1. Thank you.  Ken Buck has come a long way in the interview arena in the last year.  Those that discount him in the general election do so at their own risk.  

    My question is, will he be his own man (person) if he’s elected or will he fall into the black hole of partisan politics in order to unseat Obama in 2012?  

    1. Ken is his own man and has always been his own man. Ken’s principled and will defend Colorado based on his principles.

      Every night I dream: Buck, Tancredo, Tipton, Gardner, Frazier, Coffman, Lamborn, Stapleton, Gessler, Suthers, McNulty, and Kopp … all working to bring justice and economic policies that encourage growth and stability.

      1. I do know I wont win, but it does feel good to dream.

        I do shudder at what republicans call “justice”. it certainly has nothing to do with Just compensation for an individual wronged by big business.

        or “republican economic policies”… THATS what ruined the economy this time AND caused the Great Depression.“republican economic policies” Still have NOTHING whatsoever to do with nor ever resulted in “growth or stability.”

        Keep Dreaming there Libertard… the Libertarian pixie dust will solve all your problems and make your dreams come true. (eyes rolling)

    2. They supported Norton and now they are supporting him, not because he is what they wanted, but because he won the primary.  I can see him being part of a block that cuts earmarks and otherwise forces both parties to cut things that the powers that be would just as soon keep in place.

      1. who does everything Mitch McConnell tells him to but still poses as an outsider?

        Or like Tom Coburn, who does everything Mitch McConnell tells him to but still poses as an outsider?

        Or maybe like Richard Shelby, who does everything Mitch McConnell tells him to but still poses as an outsider?

        The Republican Senate caucus is a Borglike hive-mind into which Buck is eagerly seeking to be assimilated.

          1. We may do something different this time!

            Or we may not. Ask me again next week!

            Would Ken Buck vote for Mitch McConnell as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate? If so, then things will stay as they are in the Republican caucus.

  2. DA to Senate makes about as much sense as DA actor trying to be President. This is some scary stuff. Rhetoric without substance or specificity.  After going so far right he went right of reality, I guess he can attempt to do what most DA’s do, re-argue the point and change faces again.

      1. its the 21st century, the old model of politics will crumble and burn. It’s not like the youth of today are embracing the party bs.

        >:)

        As for thanking people, I already have when they said, “I am going to vote for you.”

        As for the others I will do that Weds Nov 3rd

  3. “over $250,000 creates MOST of the jobs” Bullshit! 2% of Americans make more than $250,000 if you own a small business and make more than $250,000 you are stealing from your own company.

    “Obama is engaged in class warfare” again BULLSHIT! the only class warfare being waged is between republicans and the rest of the country.

    “Health care not passed in Americans best interest” Yet health care was the #1 issue that elected Bill Clinton AND Barack Obama. the end run to passage was necessary to overcome republican obstructionism.

    so ol buck is A-OK with giving subsidies to fossil fuels but against giving THE VERY SAME breaks to renewable energy.

    OK then  

    like the fence behind him… Bucks logic is broken and letting reality escape.

      1. Presidents failed economic policies (reminder –> G.W. Bush)

        voted on in 2008 BEFORE Bennet got there.

        and BEFORE Obama was sowrn in.

        At least the new policing of the financial markets will be in the consumers best interest.

        Directly against the republican bailout that had NO oversight of financial actions.

        (like BOA using bailout funds to expand in buying countrywide for instance)

    1. if you own a small business and make more than $250,000 you are stealing from your own company.

      My company is a sub-chapter S. So any profit at the end of the year is viewed as income to me. We keep enough in the bank to cover all expenses including payroll for 6 months. So growing my company means I make well over 250K each year in “profit.” I have to to keep that reserve growing.

      With that said, I fully support allowing the tax cuts on income over 250K to expire. Because a growing economy will make me more money than a slightly reduced tax rate and an ongoing recession.

      1. Do you take $250,000 out of your company in salary each year?

        This isn’t about what the COMPANY makes, it’s about what YOU make.  What you take out of the company is up to you.  Even as an S-corp, you can invest your equity back into the company.

        1. go study tax law.  Sub S corporate profits are taxed to the individual shareholders – every year.  If you want “invest your equity back into the company,” you still pay tax on the profit – every year.

          Just because you use important words like equity and invest doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.

          1. About 50% of small businesses make that election in order to avoid double taxation on income.  The company makes profit, the individual is taxed on it, whether it is distributed or not.

    2. Lets see if the House Passes it, Bennet rubber stamped it. Buck N’ Bennet (even though Bennet rubber-stamped it) are still clueless about how to “fix the economic mess.”

      Buck with that “Balance Budget Amendment” solution, needs to get a history lesson or maybe someone should tell him how Government works… Jeeez

      Let alone, he is clueless as far as how that will solve the economic mess we have this year, next year, after 2012 and the years after…oh…then if the States ratified it…hmmm.. How’s that ERA doing…

      Maybe, he needs to go back to, throwing out everything but the constitutional sink, like get rid of this and that Department or thrash this and that amendment.

      Serious, folks, you have a hard choice here…Buck n’ Bennet for Colorado?

    1. Because he is not correct in his statement.

      Actually glasscup probably just doesn’t understand what a lie is, what Buck was asked, what Buck’s answer meant, etc etc.  But like the editor at ColoradoPols, the facts don’t matter as long as it is Bennet/Obama/Reid/Pelosi and everything they have done is swell (increase poverty? check; increase unemployment? check; country further in debt? check)and anyone that thinks we might do better is a liar.

  4. Ken Buck does a great job of presenting himself as reasonable.  He’s sounds good overall but then the actual words can be disturbing.  

    I really like “I love … the environment,” but he wants to use more fossil fuels.  Those aren’t compatible statements but he sounds reasonable.  I assume he supports the Clean Air Act, but his concerns about a free market make it likely he would support non-enforcement.  Nothing he says makes me think he would act to protect the environment if the tradeoff is business concerns.

    On immigration, do people realize we didn’t have immigration laws for a long time?  Why are the current laws so skewed against people from Mexico and South America?  What is the rationale for that?

    Bennet really has his work cut out for him.

    1. There are two gas wells on his property. It looks like the place is well kept up and not an environmental eye sore to me.

      The critical piece is development that is consistent with environmental statndards. I think people fool themselves when they opposed development of fossil fuels in the US.  The alternative is importing fuel from places with lesser environmental statndards.

      1. Where does most of our Natural Gas come from H?

        Gas development can be done better and worse.  There are Best Management Practices that can greatly reduce the (but not eliminate) harm to the environment.  But they have to be required.  Companies will always implement the minimal standards required, to them its good business practice.

        No one I know, and these are circles I run in, ‘oppose fossil fuel development in the US.’  Rather, those I work and associate with want regulations that protect our water, our air, our wildlife, our quality-of-life, and our economy (through realistic severance taxes, balanced development–rather than boom and bust, etc.).

        The GOP mantra that anyone who advocates for better regulations is opposed to any and all natgas or other energy development is a straw man, or as my old man use to say ‘horsefeathers.’

        1. I agree there needs to be best practices required to ensure appropriate development. Just because GOP mantra as you recall it says all regulatation is bad and against development, don’t assume that Buck goes along with that.  He always notes words to the effect consistent with environmental standards when he talks about development of Colorado’s fossil fuels.

          It is oversimplistic to say all Dems are for environmental protection.  All Republicans are opposed.  It has been a while but I seem to remember Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican.

          Buck is for a smaller federal government, not a worse one.

            1. TR and Lincoln and Eisenhower, none of the good Republican presidents would make it in today’s party.  In fact, I think they were a bit of an anomaly at the time.  Reagan is held up as the patron saint, yet he raised taxes.  He traded arms with Iran.  What’s not to like?

      2. No one has opposed, across-the-board, development of fossil fuels in the US.  The push, with Colorado one of the leading states and La Plata County one of its leaders, is for accountability.  Oil & Gas and its supporters have railed against the new regs.  Republicans have pledged to repeal them.  How do you bring that into compatibility w/ “The critical piece is development that is consistent with environmental statndards (sic).”?

        And “the place is well kept up” is very funny.  I didn’t say anything before, but look at the video again.  Behind Buck is a broken rail across the field.  I don’t call that well kept up.  My take on gas wells is that they are not an eyesore of themselves.  What is an eyesore is the acre or so of property that they clear and fence for the pad.  They can make the pad area smaller but demand that much.  I think that area has even been reduced by regs over the years.  Admit it, gas companies only responsibility is to make money and they do it the cheapest and easiest way.  Regulation is what makes capitalism work.  The current incarnation of Republican leaders, including Buck, profess the free market is the only way to go.  That kind of statement clearly points to a system with very little, if any, regulation.  But they are dishonest and won’t say that because they know most people despise that viewpoint.

  5. Although…

    1)  He doesn’t believe in man-made cause of global warming.  

    2)  Believes in expanding coal, oil and natural gas exploration and usage.  

    3)  Is not sure about “green jobs”.

    4)  Would like to limit the power of the EPA.

    This makes me crazy – how an individual can say they support a cause and then be against all tenets that represent that cause.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

25 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!