John Harwood interviews Ken Buck

41
  by: H-man September 18, 2010 at 6:18 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

John has an extensive informal interview with Ken in Greeley:

Tweet
Share

41 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Ellie says:
    September 18, 2010 at 7:49 PM MDT

    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?  

    • Libertad says:
      September 18, 2010 at 8:35 PM MDT

      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.

      • Froward69 says:
        September 18, 2010 at 8:50 PM MDT

        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)

    • H-man says:
      September 18, 2010 at 9:31 PM MDT

      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.

  2. charleymiller2010 says:
    September 18, 2010 at 7:59 PM MDT

    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.

  3. Froward69 says:
    September 18, 2010 at 8:08 PM MDT

    “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.

    • Libertad says:
      September 18, 2010 at 8:44 PM MDT

      after voting to spend trillions more on bailouts, Obummercare, cap and trade …,


      in my view we have nothing to show for it.

    • DavidThi808 says:
      September 19, 2010 at 12:34 AM MDT

      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.

      • Ralphie says:
        September 19, 2010 at 4:08 AM MDT

        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.

    • charleymiller2010 says:
      September 20, 2010 at 6:53 AM MDT

      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?

  4. glasscup says:
    September 18, 2010 at 9:25 PM MDT

    He’s now saying he doesn’t support the “fair tax”. He does.

    http://www.libertycandidatesea…

    VERY. VERY. EXPLICITLY.

    I can’t believe the press is letting him get away with this nonsense. He is lying about the positions he took during the primary.  

  5. dmindgo says:
    September 18, 2010 at 10:34 PM MDT

    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.

    • H-man says:
      September 19, 2010 at 12:07 AM MDT

      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.

      • ClubTwitty says:
        September 19, 2010 at 12:17 AM MDT

        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.’

        • H-man says:
          September 19, 2010 at 12:36 AM MDT

          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.

      • dmindgo says:
        September 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM MDT

        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.

  6. CrazyOkie says:
    September 19, 2010 at 5:52 PM MDT

    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 Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.