Who’s talking about social issues in 2010? Buck

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Denver Post editorial page editor Dan Haley got a fact wrong in his column today.

He wrote in reference to Colorado’s U.S. Senate race that only Bennet, not Buck, is talking about social issues in 2010.

Most likely, Ken Buck is the GOP nominee precisely because he talked so much and so passionately about social issues during the Republican primary, scoring much more love from the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party than his opponent Jane Norton. Arguably the support from social conservatives tipped the hard-faught primary in his direction.

So it would have been true for Haley to write that Buck doesn’t like to talk to him and mainstream journalists and average-regular-angry voters about social issues now.

And it’s true that Buck is trying not to talk about social issues to anyone now that the primary is behind him. And he’s even withdrawn his support from the Personhood initiative.

But Buck undoubtedly blabbed and blabbed about social issues to select audiences who heard his words clearly, and these folks were part of his Tea-Party victory formula.

I’m really sorry to offer this exchange again from Jim Pfaff’s social-conservative radio show (560 KLZ), but it’s emblematic of how Buck dangled his social-conservative lines to select audiences who wanted to hear them.

Pfaff: “These social issues, like marriage, these are critical issues. It has been one of the great weaknesses of the Republican Party not to deal with these critical issues.”

Buck: “I agree with you that I think it has been a weakness of the Republican Party in the United States Senate, and I think it’s time that we look at the people we are sending back to Washington DC and making sure those people are sticking by the values they espouse on the campaign trail.”

This kind of talk paid dividends for Buck.

As the Colorado Right to Life blog put it after the 2010 primary:

“The biggest victory for Personhood today was Ken Buck, for U.S. Senate.”

So, you’re right Mr. Haley, Ken Buck must not have said anything about social issues in 2010 to get that kind of response from Colorado Right to Life, which we all know cares only about jobs and the economy.

0 Shares

10 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ThillyWabbit says:

    On the Merits, Jane Norton could have made a much more compelling case for social conservatism given her  background in charismatic Christianity.

    She could easily have run an antigay campaign against Buck, hitting him over the head with his stated support of hate crime legislation (why has nobody asked him if he’s Buckpedaling on that yet?). She chose not to, likely on advice from the NRSC to not touch social issues with a ten foot pole lest it hurt her in the general.

    Now Ken Buck is getting the same advice, and also taking it. But how does that excuse his primary record? In the media’s thinking, it’s ancient history. To you and me it was last month.

    Thanks, Jason, for holding the media accountable on this.

  2. GOPwarrior says:

    Buck is the one the voters trust one the issue that matters more than anything, the economy. Democrat distractions and wedge issues do not matter this year. Dan Haley knows this.

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.