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

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

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 19, 2010 05:33 PM UTC

Abortion Ban. "Buckpedaled."

  • 215 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Reporter Allison Sherry of the major Denver newspaper is out today with a story you knew was coming sooner or later: GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck has officially abandoned Amendment 62, the so-called “personhood amendment,” claiming he ‘did not understand’ that it might actually ban certain forms of birth control. Having given the measure his steadfast support throughout the primary election, Buck’s campaign now says he will vote against it.

Buck also now says that he will not introduce a constitutional amendment overturning abortion rights, as he told voters during the primary he would. And Buck even backed off his prior position on an abortion litmus test for nominees–pro-choice would not ipso facto mean “disqualified” now. He has not, apparently, changed his position that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest; these specific policy applications are merely where the issue is forced to the surface.

But it’s no less of a turning point in this campaign, folks, indeed this could be the big one that throws all the other incidents of Buck’s flipping-flopping and dishonesty, from the democratic election of U.S. Senators to abolishing the Department of Ed, Social Security and Medicare being “fundamentally against” what he believes, or a national sales taxall of them–into unbearably sharp relief for the voters. Bob Beauprez earned the nickname “Both Ways” over far less. This all strikes us as a significant strategic error on the part of Buck’s campaign. The lessons from the Beauprez campaign, and prior to that, the John Kerry 2004 Presidential run, remain fresh in our mind; it’s always more dangerous to look like a “flip-flopper” than any one or two specific policy stances can ever be.

Buck has abandoned so much more than Beauprez ever did, so much of what he used to stand for, it begs the question: is there anything left of the Ken Buck who won the primary?

Comments

215 thoughts on “Abortion Ban. “Buckpedaled.”

      1. See, you’re guilty of the same sin as the Personhood people: making this intensely personal, religious and moral decision far too black and white.

        You’re making it sound like anyone who at least believes abortion should be legal in some circumstances is just like someone – not that there is anyone out there – who “supports” late-term abortion. No one does.

        Nice try, though.

        1. Whatever that vague, medically meaningless, politically loaded term means.  Try third trimester, or post-viability, or something else if you want to be understood.

          Fetuses with abnormalities inconsistent with extra-uterine life, and medical conditions in which a woman’s life or long-term health are threatened are qualifying conditions, and the most likely reason such procedures are done.

  1. I’m not changing my position, I didn’t “lie”, I’m jsut too dumb to understand all this complicated stuff.  “He may be educated but I am plain-spoken, just like you.”  

    And besides, y’all know what I really mean. wink wink  

  2. Hell yes he’s earned it now.

    To answer your question, there is nothing left of Buck now but an empty shell that the teabaggers paint to resemble whatever they want. Buck stands for nothing but demagogic platitudes and appeals to ignorance. It’s not going to fly! Voters have this nagging problem with being lied to.

    I really do believe that Buck is going to lose this election. My hope now has some backup.

  3. his campaign staff answered the question about “Personhood” and banning all birth control except (basically) condoms.

    Finally, we asked, “If it is shown that a form of birth control can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, would Ken Buck oppose that form of birth control?” Loftus replied, “Ken believes that life begins at conception, so, alright.”

    Here is the link http://www.gjfreepress.com/art…  

  4. Here’s my letter to the editor published in today’s big paper:

    “Buck is ‘Buckpedaling'”

    Re: “Bennet’s attack on Buck unfair,” Sept. 11 editorial.

    Tea Party supporters of Ken Buck must have been dismayed when they read the Denver Post’s editorial about the “unfair” attack ad by Michael Bennet.  The Post says that Buck is not questioning the constitutionality of Social Security and is not calling for an end to the Department of Education, nor an end to student loans.  Yet, these are the very positions that enticed Tea Partyers to endorse Buck over Jane Norton.  They knew he believed these things because he said so at numerous campaign events, and he stated these positions on his website.  It’s true that since the primary, Buck has tried to “Buckpedal” from his most radical opinions, but this must cause even more consternation to the Tea Party supporters.  They must be wondering, “Who is the real Ken Buck and what does he really believe?”

  5. About a 4 point lead over Bennet.

    Want to know how badly this is going to affect Buck with his base?  Here is the quote from the person who sent out the questionaire:

    Cleta Jasper, a board member from the Pikes Peak Citizens for Life – which sent Buck the survey during the primary election season – defines “pro-abortion” as anyone who is pro-choice.

    Is she disappointed Buck wouldn’t use abortion as a litmus test now?

    “Not enough to kick him in the shins,” she said.

    Read more: Buck softens stance on abortion and “personhood” – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/elec

    Do you think any pro-life type is going to abandon Buck for Bennet.  

    They will run through walls to vote Bennet out.

    ColoradoPols just doesn’t get it.

    1. I’ll see your anti-choice loonies who can’t be moved.

      For every one of them, I’ll raise you FIVE independent voters who can’t stand politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth. Or, like the national sales tax business, lie through their teeth.

      I’m afraid that YOU are the one who does not “get it.”

      1. Face it Bennet is not talking about the public option and now he cares about deficit spending?

        Both candidates move to the middle after a primary.  Romanoff and Norton would be doing the exact same thing.

        1. That’s why so many of the Romanoffers and Sirota hated him from day one. He is fiscally moderate and socially progressive, and has been every single day since he was appointed.

            1. before they get to use the word “socialist”. Nothing we have in this country comes anywhere close to Socialism. At all. It’s ridiculous to hear Republicans and the new conservative wing repeat this over and over like good sheeple should.

              The closest thing the world has to Socialism is maybe, MAYBE, some of the European countries. Not counting the U.K.

              So tell me again how he has a voting record of a “fiscal socialist”? How?

              1. A job for all the years you care to work unless you do something really stupid, and then early retirement with good benefits. Lodging, food, and health care for you and yours and free advanced education.  In fact, for some, the education starts at the undergrad level at our military colleges.

                Not saying there’s anything wrong with this, just that most people never see this, “hidden in plain sight,” as it were.  

    2. Morning, noon and night all I see is negative ads by the senator. He’s leaving such a bad taste in peoples mouths.

      Worse for Bennet, this year people could give a shit about abortion as we and our neighbors find it harder and harder to put food on the table. Bennet-Obama policies have delivered 4 million new children to the poverty rolls in the last year alone.

      And what’s the coming business environment?

      The other day I see an ad by Bank of America, their promoting how they’ve loaned Americican’s $323 billion this year.

      It makes us think, hummm great they’re out lending in this tough market, but for christsake Bennet-Obama have redistributed 3x (over a trillion) in the last year and what do we have to show for it?

      1. and when the spike in poverty began, it didn’t just happen in 2009.  Also, who set the budget and priorities for Fed FY2009….?   Oh yeah, same guy in charge both times.  Don’t be a BJ.

        1. Pelosi-Reid-Obama have held power since 1/3/2007.

          Bennet was only appointed in 2008, I guess you could say he’s only responsible for 2 of the 4 million new poverty entrants.

          1. That Dems held power thing is cute but completely false as they never had a big enough majority then to come close to fighting the GOP backed by Bush veto power.  So the truth is, jobs haven’t been created at the clip we’d like and lord knows plenty of us think more should have been done to focus on job creation right off the bat, the fact is the Bush era job losses have been stopped and turned into Obama era job gains, slow as that gain may be, it beats losses.  

            I know how you folks hate fact-y stuff, Lib. I know how you like to talk about taxes having been raised on the middle class although they haven’t been raised on anybody yet. I know how you love to talk about curing the Bush collapse by keeping those tax cuts for the super wealthy and taking the deficit out of everybody else’s hide because tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs even though, throughout the Bush years while they were in place, they never did. Of course they weren’t supposed to.  

            Remember way back when the cuts mainly for the very rich were supposed to be the answer to the government having way too much money because of the Clinton surplus? Nobody called them any kind of stimulus back then and turns out,  they were right not to.

            In fact those dollars have mainly been put into fat investment portfolios that profited from low paying jobs,  eliminating jobs, and exporting jobs and off shoring wealth. As Mike Littwin said today

            How’s the job creation- thing working out for us?.  

            We all know that the hardcore social conservative right is an important part of support for tea party candidates and anything that makes Buck look like another lying pol to the middle and punctures religious right enthusiasm for him is good for Bennet, make no mistake. I love the way Buck now says he would have no litmus test preventing pro-choice candidates from Senate confirmation because he’s really only against pro-abortion activists who promote abortions.  

            First, that ought to go over real well with those who supported him for his absolutely no ifs ands or buts anti-choice stand.  Second, since I’ve never heard of a pol who thinks abortions are terrific and wants to talk women into having them and don’t personally know a single liberal who feels that way, that pretty much means there will never be anyone to confirm who meets his standard for opposition on the basis of that issue.  So how do you really think the complete 180 on the pro-choice-y thing is going to work out for him?

            1. …being you ignore morons, etc…

              Worse, your ignorance has brought us some serious economic devistation.

              More then 166,000 Coloradoans are offically without jobs, their children being shuttled to the ranks of poverty, yet there you blog with no ability to justify your failed policies.

                  1. You’re just a typical Democrat hack. No elections were ever stolen by a Supreme Court or voting machines rigged, just because you lost. Are you a 9/11 truther too?

                    1. yet the supreme court denied the recount of the whole state of Florida. (That Gore actually won.) Handing the Presidency to W Bush.

                      The Republican CEO of Diabold “Guaranteed” republican victories in every state his machines were used.

                      Historical Facts there bj.  

        1. and women do not look kindly on a candidate who wants to take them away.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must live in a closed society.  It is totally related to economic conditions.

            1. I promise I won’t flush a single tampon this month.  Instead I’ll send them all to you for safe keeping.  Just in case there’s a fertilized egg in one.

              Oh wait, that was another un-researched soapbox moment that has been reversed.  That baby killing Buck!

    3. I get that you’re supporting Buck because you don’t like Bennet. But is there any positive reason you have to vote for Buck? Any positions of Buck’s that you agree with, that you think he’ll still hold next week?

      What does Buck believe in that’s immutable? What are his principles? And no, “winning” is not a principle.

      1. Reduce size of government? check

        lower debt and deficit? check

        restore sanity to our tax and spend systems? check

        Help create environment so private sector can create jobs? check

        help reduce government overreach like Obamacare? check

        Not be a yes man for Dem interest groups? check

        I could go on, but you get the point.

          1. Lower taxes to increase revenue.

            Then eliminate the Dept of Ed, revise Social Security and Medicare – repeal Obamacare and secure the borders.

            Poof – it’s all done. Reagan did it- we can do it again, right?

        1. He hasn’t made any commitment to reducing the size of government. (And the rest of your post is a rephrasing of that one position.) Has he proposed anything like that? Do you have an actual quote?

          These sound like your own little fantasy agenda items, and your love for Buck has persuaded you that he believes in them too. But you’re not really sure anymore, are you? So you repeat them to yourself because you’re hoping that will convince you, but it doesn’t work as well as it used to.

          Buck used the tea party conservatives. He has bucktracked on a dozen positions already, and there are still six weeks until the election. If he says we need a new stimulus in October, will it really surprise you?

          Stop lying to yourself, H-man. If he can lie now with impunity, when he’s ahead in the polls, why do you trust him to do anything different from Bennet once he gets elected? What do you think he will owe small-government conservatives? Why will he be less likely to sell them out than the pro-life conservatives, or the anti-tax conservatives, or anyone else he’s used?

        2. A vote for Buck is vote for extremism and a return to aristoratic politics that has no respect for the law, unless one is of the upper 1% of course.

          The years of Bush/Cheney have passed. Colorado will not return a candidate taht supported the catastrophe.

        3. Obama’s first budget reduces the deficit, so check.

          Define ‘tax system sanity’

          The bill to provide small businesses with access to badly needed credit will help the private sector create jobs – too bad the Republicans are against it.

          Too bad for you that Buck supports government overreach like Social Security and Medicare

          Buck will just be a yes man for Republican interest groups

        1. I’m not even sure I disagree with Buck on his policies. I really haven’t the slightest idea what they might actually be.

          Once in office, Buck could as easily be Bernie Sanders as Tom Coburn. I just don’t know.

          One thing I do know is that he’s not an honest person.

        2. At the rate he’s going, Buck may end up being Scott Brown II. Are you sure you want to put all your chips on him? I’d stay home and lick your wounds if I were you… 🙂

      2. All of them.

        H-man, bj, BJ, and others know that Buck hasn’t changed anything but the words.  Buck still believes that birth control should  be banned, that the Dept of Ed could and should be cut, that aborting a pregnancy is murder, that the answer to energy consumption is, was and will be burn more coal and drill, baby, drill.

        What Buck’s least crazy supporters don’t realize, but also so far don’t care about is that if birth control is banned, the number of abortions will go up not down, that forcing/allowing 100% “local” control of education is how we got segregation,  gender discrimination in education  and schools teaching “creation science.”  That outlawing abortion won’t stop women from deciding to terminating pregnancy. That we could drill all we want – liquid fuels are going to run out.

    4. A successful election includes motivating your base. With his buckpedal on abortion, Buck has just caused a sizeable number of his supporters to lose interest, motivation and drive.

      There’s no way you can spin that differently. Oh well, I guess you can try like you always do, but it’ll look pretty silly.

  6. Ancient, ancient time-honored “principle” of candidates of both parties: swing to an extreme to round up the True Believers in order to win the primary, then rapidly row back towards the center… “And on the Eighth Day, God invented Earmarks, saying: “Waffle, O ye politicos, lest principle impede thy election.”

    Next thing we know, Buck will profess belief in the First Amendment, separation of church and state, and the right of every natural born native child to one helping of soft-serve ice-cream each week between June 1 and Sep. 1. Whatever It Takes I believe is the name of the theory, also known as Talk Is Cheap.

    BUT, I suspect there is indeed one thing left of the Ken Buck who won the primary: his aversion to government action to stimulate a stalled economy, the jobless stats notwithstanding, accompanied by an aversion to government regulation of rapacious capitalistas who are funding his campaign (actually, funding both campaigns).

    Fortunately, the Democratic candidate would never declare in his ads, “I’m a businessman.” Would he?

      1. for the other JO who said, “Vote for Bennet, no matter what?” Sorry, s/he left for the home planet some mnths ago.

        But, what s/he could have said (but didn’t) was: “Yeah, we have 9.5% unemployment instead of 12.5%. That’s what we have to show for it. Want more than 9.5? Republicans can provide and they deliver until 10 p.m.. Shoulda had–and still should have– a bigger stimulus.”

        Beware lest you start believing, not just repeating, the pubic pronouncements of Republicans in general and Republican campaigns in particular. They tend to make Republican politicians seem a bit like they were, well, AWOL when brain cells were being allocated. (That was around 16:45 hrs on the Sixth Day; where were you then, anyway? I thought I advised not to go for the discount brand!).

        1. Beware the public pronouncements of Dems. They said unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%. Combined with everything else they’ve done, it’s clear they’ve burned every brain cell they ever had. Too much pot? Or is it crack? We know Obama smokes; does he still do drugs too?

              1. How long have you been here again?

                Calling the President a crackhead means you deserve no respect at all. Do you think calling Obama a crackhead is over the top?

                Show some respect and you’ll get some respect.

                  1. I hadn’t heard that.  When I did a search for it all I found were blogs calling him a homo-Muslim-crackhead.  I also found a memo from some guy not making a whole lotta sense talking about drug policies in the government (which I’m already aware of and agree with) and how that makes Obama a self proclaimed crackhead.  It didn’t seem official to me, as “crackhead” isn’t exactly the legal or medical term.

                    Little help?

                    Thanks in advance.

                    1. I Googled “crackhead” and “Obama.”  Because that’s the cute little phrase you used.

                      Now you should Google Bush and drug use.  There’s a really nice article, with links, outlining all of his admitted pot use, drinking problem, and his refusal to answer questions about harder drugs unless they had specific time lines.

                      So, what was the point?  Oh, right, that Presidents are people too and they all have pasts.  Some of the events are not pleasant.  If you insist on calling one out though, you gotta do it all.  Otherwise you look like an inconsistent idiot.  You do anyway, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

                    2. since the founding of our country. I’m talking about the current one, since he’s the only one that is currently relevant. Also, for calling me an inconsistent idiot, you get the sig line.

                    1. but not remotely as funny as the notion that your parents named you after a sexual act you’ll never actually receive.

              1. He was also too stupid to get his own college education and had to use Daddy’s money to buy one.

                See the problem with disrespect, Beej? No President is perfect. They’re all men who had personal lives before entering public service.

                  1. When have you ever been accurate? Or was that a joke?

                    You’re a joke. What happened to your big announcement to not post at Pols anymore? Did the other website not like you either?

                    I think it’s time I go back to ignoring you’re ignorant comments again.

          1. stimulus Unemployment would be topping 12% or better without a ceiling in sight.  

            Just as FDR did. Obama is doing but with an FDR blueprint. (skipping the mistakes republicans wish he would make.)

            Republicans know they are finished as a party should Obama succeed like FDR did.

            I got a graph for ya bj… those darling 1050’s you and republicans want to return to…

            the fact is that the tax rate would only return to what it was under Clinton.

            republican policies = Depression.

              1. How prevalant were state income taxes, tax rate for local taxes etc, etc? If you raise tax rates you are going to further hurt the employment picture.  How much do you really want to hurt your next door neighbors? Sometimes the Dems class envy chromosome does not let them see the interrelationship of the two.

                1. “How prevalent were state income taxes…”

                  So you’re saying there were no state taxes in the 1950s? Riiiiight….

                  But you could easily prove your point if there were any actual facts behind it.

                  You don’t have an answer, in fact.

              1. I doubt the CBO would have weighed in.  As I think EVERYone agrees, it’s really hard to calculate the effectiveness of “stimulus” beyond pumping money into the economy keeps it moving, and vice versa.

                Waiting for the private sector to jump in and save us doesn’t work.  It didn’t in the 1930’s and it still won’t.  

                1. CBO finds stimulus boosted economy

                  The Democrats’ stimulus raised economic growth by as much as 4.5 percent in the last quarter and may have increased the number of people with jobs by more than 3 million, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released Tuesday.

                  The Beej was probably thinking of a discreted year old analysis:

                  There was an especially maddening opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last year in which John Taylor and a couple of colleagues claimed that incoming data showed the stimulus to be a failure. Once you began reading, though, it quickly became clear that the incoming data didn’t prove anything at all and that Taylor & Co.’s failure verdict was the product instead of “our research with modern macroeconomic models.”

                  Funny thing, teh Google.  Maybe someday The Beej will learn to use it.

                  1. in your upside down world. I could be wrong, but I thought unemployment wasn’t supposed to go above 8% with the stimulus. Oh for the days of Bush when unemployment was 5%.

              1. …with their Republican philosophies.

                You’re blowing smoke outta your ass, boy.  No credible (repeat, credible) economist believes that.  

                And if government stimulus was so bad, how did all that government money being spent for WWII somehow do well for the economy?  

                Stay off of the field until you get big enough to play.  

                  1. in 1933 when FDR took office unemployment was 25% it had remained 25% the last THREE years of Hoover.

                    By 1941 Unemployment was 12% I would say FDR was being SUCCESSFUL.

                    Like today Unemployment would be far higher (than 9%) if it weren’t for Obama and His stimuli.

                    1. The guy makes idiotic arguments that don’t have facts behind them – as you once again pointed out. It’s like arguing with a six-year-old.

                    2. The beejster is a good example of Right Wing Radio Brain Rot.

                      Also, of Goebbel’s observation that saying a lie enough times makes it a truth.

  7. [redacted]Wilson83 should roll out of bed.  Once he explains this to us all in a thoughtful and intelligent manner, we will then be able to have an informed debate on this matter.

    Until we have it from the horse’s mouth, I am unable to form an opinion on this matter.

  8. The story is Buck’s lying.  The thread?  Dominated by Libertad and H=Man and all the progressives are on the defensive.

    Way to go, Dems.

    For the record, I said abortion et. al is a non=issue and the dems should not get into it.  You can’t win.

    Buck has taken the oath to be “pro-life”…that is all he has to do to win wide-spread endorsement from the right and the religious.  Everyone “knows” that he will do nothing to change the status quo….it is a “winky wink” position.

  9. If the personhood amendment passes, would he obtain a warrant against medical personnel in abortion clinics, charge and arrest them based on the a voter approved personhood amendment?

    too late to ask that.  Why?  because buck finally got around to changing his position.   Way to go, Dems

          1. So he is a candidate for the state legislature.  Fine.  Look, I can goggle him, etc.  But it would be good to know if he is the Tea Party candidate or just a Republican, is he running for the state senate or house?  What district?  How is he doing in the polls?  Who is his opponent?

            The more we know, the better it is.  

              1. It’s the seat Ellen Roberts is giving up to run for the state Senate. J. Paul is running as a Republican but is a tea partier all the way. Should he be elected, and he might in that screwy district, he’d provide rich entertainment in the legislature.

                The Democrat is Brian O’Donnell.

  10. Buck never said he was going to introduce a constitutional amendment overturning abortion rights (which, BTW, doesn’t exist – there is no “right” to an abortion). He clearly and specifically said that he would not go to Washington with a social agenda. After all, many Tea Partiers are libertarians who are pro-abortion. Also, I never heard him talk about a litmus test for nominees and in fact IIRC he specifically said he was against such a test. Feel free to debate Ken on the issues, Pols, but MSU is not going to win you the election.

          1. Buck could be pro-choice (pro-murder, to some people) and I wouldn’t care this election. Not a thing is going to change on abortion regardless of what view Buck holds. (For the record, I do believe he is strongly pro life. Interesting how quickly Pols shut up about Buck’s continuing opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest with this new line of attack.) I want Ken Buck in the U.S. Senate to fix the mess Obama has made of the economy and our government. Pure and simple. Bennet would be nothing but a rubberstamp for Obama and I don’t think we could ever recover from two more years of his agenda.

            1. Because he said so? Or because you think he said so?

              His former statements are no longer operative. Opposition to Obama’s agenda may be what a rogue staffer believes, but it’s not what Buck believes. Buck believes in getting elected, and that’s just about it.

              This is what you seem to be having trouble with. He doesn’t think he owes you or any conservative anything.

              What makes you think he won’t pull a Specter and become a Democrat if Democrats become more popular in 2014? Did he say he wouldn’t? Do you believe that?

              If Buck would lie about LIFE, he’d lie about anything.

                    1. some undeserved, and others mostly deserved, but I’ve never been called anything as insulting as friend of this fool.

              1. This is the Republican strategy:

                I want Ken Buck in the U.S. Senate to fix the mess Obama has made of the economy and our government. Pure and simple.

                The dems in colorado have decided not to answer that charge.  The dems in colorado have decided to play the abortion card.  I think the dems in colorado are stupid.

          2. you guys criticize Buck for supporting “opposition to common forms of birth control”, so he takes a look at your concerns and agrees that 62 is maybe going too far. Then, in return for his acknowledgment of your concerns, you turn around and stab him in the back for not being far right enough. Of course we know you’re just trying to trip him up, but it really is very sad when Buck is actually discussing the issues and addressing people’s concerns, and the only response he gets from you haters is mud thrown in his face.

            1. Now I realize he doesn’t have any positions, and has probably never had any positions.

              He will say anything to get elected. That’s worse than disagreeing with little old me.

              If you think hard enough about it, you might eventually see a problem with a candidate who will say literally anything at all to get elected.

                1. When Buck disagrees with me he’s just telling it like it is and being conservative? But when he agrees with me then he’s just trying to represent the “crazies”?

                  Which part of wanting safe, effective birth control crazy?

        1. Candidate has to say and holding them accountable, is par for the course…

          Just because you never heard Buck say three different things does not make what YOU heard (or didn’t hear in this case) any more of the truth.

          1. Ideology trumps competence.  I think it’s his creed.

            Trouble is, nobody knows what Buck believes anymore.  Is it what was on his web site last week or this week?  What will it be next week?

            1. don’t know what he believes, because it is intentionally being obscured. Those who listen to him and care about Colorado’s future know exactly what he means.

                  1. a Republican problem, is the ability to outright lie in the face of historical facts,and then lie about lying. All without shame. Did you go to confession this morning?

                    Only the truth shall set you free bj. Are you capable of that, or are you condemned to a life in the chains of ignorance, falisfications and delusion?

              1. behavior in court (first hand) and his willingness to “bend the rules” there is NO way I could ever believe a word he says.

                So his now saying anything different than what he has said before does NOT surprise me.

                Buck’s “solid stance” is akin to stability on a water-bed.  

                bj you have been proven wrong so many times…

                Demonstrated your willful ignorance over and over.

                While I do admire your tenacity. It is a wonder why you do not give up a losing position. OR why you fervently believe the crap you so willingly swallow and defend.

            1. Is that a teabagger version of a “vulture?”

              Marilou–true teabagger.  Issues with spelling.

              Wake me up when the average teabagger IQ reaches 85.  They I’ll start worrying that their message is resonating with the rest of society.

  11. How come the incumbent Senator is not ahead?

    It must be all the non-ColoradoPolsters that don’t recognize virtue when they see it.  No, I get it.  It is all of those 527 ads.  After all Bennet’s “true but misleading” ads are paid for by people who are pure and clean because they give to Dems.  

    Surely the people will see things the polsters way by November 2?  Whoops, there are only 3% undecides and Bennet is down by 4%.  Too bad, so sad.

    1. this far out from election day in 2008

      so your Point is? What? that these numbers will hold even in the revelation of Bucks allergic reaction to sticking to one position?

      I seriously doubt it.

    2. Have been a Cubs fan by birth, I can tell you that you can be leading through the 8th inning, but (not counting rainouts) if you are not leading in the last inning, your lead was nothing but so much frustration.

      You can be leading your division for five or even five and a half months – and yet the playoffs are not yours.

      In fact, you can be leading 3-2 in a best of 7, leading in a late inning of of game 6 and still it all doesn’t matter.

      Of course, it’s not just the Cubs. You could be a Miami (Ohio) hockey fan, be leading 3-1 in the NCAA final with less than a minute to play and still get beat 4-3 in OT.

      Hell, if you can get your marching band to help out, you could be kicking off  leading by 1 with just 0:04 seconds on the clock and still that lead could be meaning less.

      Repeat after me. November, not September.

      Ballots are in the mail in a couple of weeks  – start crowing when about 1/2 are counted.  Until then, you appear to just be blindly shilling for your guy.

    3. Because outright lying and telling specific groups of people what they want to hear, rather than what they really intend to do, never works in politics, does it? Buck must be ahead because he’s been completely truthful.

  12. are all like vulchers.  I appreciate when someone listens and considers the evidence.  The #62 people have insisted that it would not curtail contraception.  Upon further consideration, it just may.  

    Heaven knows we begged Mikey not to socialize our medical care.  He didn’t listen and voted for medical control anyway.

    Reasons to vote for Buck?

    Reduce size of government? check

    Lower debt and deficit? check

    Restore sanity to our tax and spend systems? check

    Help create environment so private sector can create jobs? check

    Help reduce government overreach like Obamacare? check

    Not be a yes man for Democrat interest groups? check

    You libs damn well understand Rules for Radicals, and understand how to come up with an inane, irrelevant attack. That’s what libs do.

    1. Their website clearly express a desire to outlaw the most common methods of birth control.

      Because you, Buck and the pro-62 people think the pill, IUDs, etc are “chemical abortifacients” doesn’t make it so.

    2. we look for a fish near the surface and strike. then carry it to a tree and dine on its flesh.

      Like Ken “lying” Buck his lies have made him easy prey by forcing him to the surface.

    3. Do you mean the “libs” are circling around some putrid rotting corpse stench?  Should I read that as an your indictment of Buck, Buck’s lies, or Buck’s supporters.  Do you have the ability to clarify your piffle?

  13. Help me out if I am wrong here, please, any prosecutors (EX) or Ex-DA’s please chime in.

    I wont comment on being born like Bennet under privilege, both New York Lawyer parents driven you into Ivy league, and that sort of thing.

    (We know Buck n’ Bennet don’t understand the “Little Guy.”)

    So, in a nutshell:

    DA, come generally from assistant DA’s, who come from Federal or State prosecution work.

    Prosecutors are held to represent the people and fight the bad guys, you know our criminals.

    So, day in and day out, all they see is criminals and victims of all sorts, most not pleasant. They tend to talk into a pattern of black and white and have to change faces (positions) many times.

    You see, its not cut and dry with the law. For the criminals, you have what prosecutors call the “dark side.” Criminal defense attorneys fight to plea bargain or get their clients off.

    Prosecutors (maybe I am wrong here) have to cut deals (how often I don’t know) and bargain away charges and counts.

    DA’s fight other things like public opinion and things like budget constraints.

    Buck is a creature of habit. I doubt he can change. Like I said before, when you go so far right you gone right of reality, how are you ever gonna climb back.

    I could be wrong. Maybe with a few more rolled up sleeve commercials and better sound bites he may be able to pull some more wool over himself.

     

  14. I blame BJ, HMan, Libertad, et. al.

    Seriously, this site has been taken hostage by the conservative crazies and it is becoming a waste of time.

    Thoughts, ColoPols?

    1. if you suddenly found out the Senate candidate you’ve been shilling for has been lying all along and sold you and your friends out to the New York Times.

      Really, show some sympathy. Buck supporters have been through some very painful times lately.

    2. The Republican party has been taken hostage by extremist crazies within it, and as a result our national discourse has really degenerated.

      In today’s Republican party, Nixon and Eisenhower would both have been denounced as socialist RINOs.

  15. In the last couple weeks Buck has been portrayed as Atila the Hun and Adolf Hitler by some Polsters because of his views on Abortion and the fears they expressed of the views one Senator might have on law.  Buck allays those fears by stating he will not use nominees views on abortion as a litmus test in voting on their approval and he will not enter into the gray area of birth control as to his pro-life views.  

    Once expressed the Polsters attack again with renewed fervor.

    It must be that the Polsters want their next United States Senator to use abortion as a litmus test and that he should impose his pro-life views into the arena of birth control. Otherwise they certainly would be expressing their support.

    1. I can only assume Buck would oppose allowing US military servicewomen to pay for abortions at military hospitals overseas.  This is a real pending issue in the US Senate which has nothing to do with SCOTUS nominees or birth control.  It’s a legitimate issue on which to oppose Buck’s candidacy.

      H-Man: “La La La – I can’t hear you”

  16. I don’t have anything new to say that hasn’t already been said, so I’ll just point out that originally post had an incorrect use of “begs the question”.

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

61 readers online now

Newsletter

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