Abortion Ban. “Buckpedaled.”

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?

0 Shares

215 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    Yes.

    A man who wants to be our US Senator.

    Ambition remains.

    Principles have departed.

  2. MADCO says:

    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  

  3. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    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.

  4. Cyclops says:

    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…  

  5. caroman says:

    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?”

  6. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    Off the phone with HQ, big boy! We’re waiting for the spin!

  7. H-man says:

    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.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      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.”

      • H-man says:

        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.

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          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.

          • H-man says:

            Record breaking debt, nothing to show for it.

            • MADCO says:

              for which we fought a war of choice, awarded a few boatloads of no bid contracts and cut taxes on the rich.

            • EmeraldKnight76 says:

              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?

              • Ralphie says:

                They think their framing works for them.

              • parsingreality says:

                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.  

    • Libertad says:

      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?

      • ClubTwitty says:

        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.

        • Libertad says:

          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.

          • ClubTwitty says:

            and started the surge in poverty as the Bush voodoo economy tanked in 2008.

          • BlueCat says:

            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?

      • nancycronknancycronk says:

        the idea of someone forcing them to have more kids is very important.

    • sxp151 says:

      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.

      • H-man says:

        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.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          lower debt and deficit? check

          I mean, other than just being against debt and deficits?  

        • sxp151 says:

          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?

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          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.

        • cunninjo says:

          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

        • sxp151 says:

          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.

        • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

          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… 🙂

      • MADCO says:

        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.

    • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

      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.

  8. JO says:

    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?

  9. Diogenesdemar says:

    [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.

  10. dwyer says:

    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.

  11. dwyer says:

    “Winky Wink Win”

    I like the dog whistle shout out, but I would prefer to keep that for the racial crapola.

  12. dwyer says:

    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

  13. bjwilson83 says:

    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.

  14. H-man says:

    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.

    • sxp151 says:

      Lying turns voters off. Even supporters (if they’re not too blinded already).

    • Froward69 says:

      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.

    • MADCO says:

      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.

    • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

      How come McCain-Palin didn’t win in 2008?

    • AristotleAristotle says:

      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.

  15. marilou says:

    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.

  16. 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.

     

  17. caroman says:

    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?

    • sxp151 says:

      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.

    • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

      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.

    • ModerateGal says:

      Slightly informative.

      Mostly annoying.

      Zero entertainment value.

  18. H-man says:

    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.

    • sxp151 says:

      That’s what liars do. Because it’s lying. You’re welcome.

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      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”

  19. chaisson21 says:

    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 Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


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