President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 14, 2010 05:54 PM UTC

Buck Loses Defensive Cover on "Buyer's Remorse" Rape Scandal

  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Scot Kersgaard of the Independent responds directly to partisan attacks on his reporting.


So the campaign of GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck has chosen its response to the emerging scandal surrounding his refusal to prosecute an alleged case of rape in 2005–a case he refused even though the alleged perpetrator was recorded admitting to the crime. The expressed callousness toward the victim in the case, not to mention preconceived biases that may have affected his judgment, are the central themes in this story as now reported coast to coast.

Buck’s response? Naturally, shoot the messenger.

In [Buck spokesman Owen] Loftus’s opinion, ProgressNow, Waak and others are acting as if they’re compassionate, “but they’re really exploiting victims — and that’s the really unfortunate thing about this. Now, a victim might not want to report a case because they’re afraid their story could end up on the front page of the Denver Post.”

That’s a peculiar defense we must say, since it’s easily arguable that the way Buck treated this alleged victim is a far greater deterrent to a future rape victim reporting a case than a political group giving said victim a platform to tell what happened could ever be. And as the Colorado Independent’s Scot Kersgaard reports this morning, the latest in a devastating series, the victim being “exploited” by these “liberal smear merchants”…is talking to the press all by herself.

So much for shooting the messenger:

“I represented something he didn’t like,” said the victim, who didn’t wish to be identified, in an interview with the Colorado Independent Saturday. “I don’t know why. I was a full-time student, I worked full-time, I was doing tons of volunteer work.

“We all have these stereotypes, but we have to be able to look past them in order to deal with the individual. In a position like DA, you have to be able to do that, and he couldn’t do it,” she said.

Specifically, she is talking about his reference, in a private meeting, to an abortion she says she never had, as well as his references to her drinking on the night in question, and his repeated references to the fact she had invited the suspect into her home…

During the victim’s meeting with Buck, Buck referred to the fact that she had invited the suspect to her apartment, saying, “It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him.”

“So, you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent; you’re telling me that because I called him and invited him up, that I invited him up for sex?” she asks.

“I’m telling you that’s what circumstances suggest to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although you never said the word ‘yes,’ the appearance is of consent.” Buck said…

“He (the suspect) admitted he did it, and they gave him a pass, said, ‘Thanks for coming in,'” the victim says. [Pols emphasis]

“Buck told me that something morally wrong happened, but that it wasn’t legally wrong. I read him the statute (Colorado Revised Statute 18-3-402), which says it is sexual assault if the victim is physically helpless or intoxicated,” the victim said.

Make sure you read the entire feature-length report, with much more directly from the alleged victim, as well as comments from experts on sexual assault who dispute pretty much everything Buck asserted to her about the law. And the worst part of today’s story for Buck? The “liberal smear merchants” that he’s relying on to deflect from this growing disaster are nowhere to be found.

It’s looking more and more like an endgame, folks. We’ve seen it before.


154 thoughts on “Buck Loses Defensive Cover on “Buyer’s Remorse” Rape Scandal

  1. Much worse than the first two. Why hasn’t this made front page of the major newspaper?  What are the political reporters doing?

    The instances described in the police report describe not just a rape, but a rape that the suspect knew he had committed. If it’s in the police report – why couldn’t it have gone to trial???  

          1. But I think Ken Buck is going down like many of his Republican predecessors. Beauprez, Shaffer, McInnis…the list is long and growing.

            The voters of Senate Dist. 7 should make sure that Rep. Steve King joins that bunch on the sidelines. He, too, seems to be driven by the triad of characteristics shared by his Republican brethren…arrogance, greed, and a disregard for ethics.

            In my view, Mr. Buck and Mr. King are cut from the same cloth.

            *Disclosure note: I support Rep. Kings’ opponent, Claudette Konola, and have contributed to her campaign, but I do not work for her campaign.

  2. And part of it is to decide whether to prosecute or not. To make an estimation of whether the prosecution will be successful or not.

    I was prepared to ignore this point – sure, with hindsight lots of things look different –  (Josh McDaniels,  Ernie Broglio, Mark Hermann & Chris Hinton, NoNo Nanette)  and just focus on the poor treatment of the woman making the complaint.

    But this  looks like she was feeling exactly what it appears happened: Buck prejudged her as a person and decided she was not worthy of prosecuting her assailant.  The law is the law for everyone and no elected official should get to make that kind of decision.  

    I don’t like your politics, so you get a speeding ticket…says the R officer to the guy with the Obama bumper sticker.

    I think perhaps you had a legal abortion that I disapprove of, so you don’t deserve a rape prosecution base don your accusation

    1. with hindsight lots of things look different –  (Josh McDaniels,  Ernie Broglio, Mark Hermann & Chris Hinton, NoNo Nanette)

      How about the Mets trading away Nolan Ryan to get Jim Fregosi in 1971?

        1. Which the Mets sorely needed at the time.

          He had been a several-time all-star with the Angels.  But he never had a good season after the trade.  The Mets shipped him to the Texas Rangers two years later.

          At the time of the trade, Ryan was young and scary wild.  We all know what happened after that.

          1. I was a huge Mets fan in those days.

            My great-uncle Irving (Uncle Toots) had season tickets, and I was at the NLCS game in 1973 when Pete Rose and Bud Harrelson went at it.  The Mats batted around in the second inning and Rusty Stuub hit two home runs.

            After the brawl, the crowd was chanting “Reds Eat Shit! Reds Eats Shit!”

              1. I was just looking at his lifetime stats, and I think my memory is jogged by the great September he had before the NLCS that year, also conflation w/ Graig Nettles.

          2. It’s passing – I loved Sciosa.

            The Cubs weren’t as good as everyone thought in 69.

            But my hatred of the Padres – Mr Gwynn excepted- is for life.

    2. Another part of a DA’s job is to protect the public from confessed criminals.  It is shocking that Buck didn’t charge the guy and at least get him plea … he confessed!

      This would have been an easy “win” for Buck, which is perfect for an elected prosecutor.  Only a person so blinded by a 1950’s view on sex and gender wouldn’t at least try to prosecute this confessed criminal.  Buck personification of sexism manifested itself in a way that has very present repercussions.

      There were plenty of plea bargains available to Buck if he truly thought he couldn’t get a conviction for rape; but he didn’t make the charge and resulting plea offer.  The streets are less safe because of this prosecutorial decision.  A confessed rapist is on the streets, that has not registered as a sex offender.  This should be the story.  The story should not be about how this information came to light (although reading Scot’s article, it appears that there is no inappropriate collusion).   The bottom line is that Buck’s decision has real world consequences that have made Colorado more dangerous.

      1. Obviously Buck simply did not want to prosecute.

        If a DA knows (and the evidence is there that Buck knew) the guy was a rapist, a criminal perpetrator, he also has a duty to advise the police on what he needs from them to successfully prosecute the case: develop evidence independent of the phonecall confession, re-interview both parties, etc. Police and DA’s consult all the time. They’d better: They’re on the same side, the side that stops criminals to protect the rest of us. Did Buck perform this duty? Evidently not.

        Buck knew it was “legal” rape. It was laid out right in front of him by the perpetrator. He just believes, from his paternalistic, religion dominated, antiquated worldview of man/woman relationships, that rape — if she doesn’t go to his church, if she’s not his sister, if she drinks alcohol — is the woman’s fault. He’d already tried the victim under the precepts of his worldview, why go to the trouble of trying the actual case under the “law”? Official duty? Colorado obviously has the wrong laws. His “laws” supercede all that secular, mondern-day nonsense.

        If someone wants to vote for this creep to represent them in public office with his view of the world, they’re definitely not on the side of law or other Colorado citizens. And they really must like creeps.

        1. You might want to read an article in the Denver Newspaper

          There a real rape victim who gives her name is interviewed about how Buck and his office handled her case.  The article goes on a describes changes that he has helped bring about to improve the justice delivery system for rape victims.

          She says she will be voting for him.

          1. I’m surprised to see so many conservatives supporting Ritter though.  This just in; DA’s are supposed to prosecute and put rapists away.

            Not just easy cases.  They are all we have.  This duty should not be taken so lightly.

            The tough thing about being fair and decent is that you have to do it all the time.

            I can find at least one story where even Hitler did something good for a single person.  I can find at least one story where even The Dalai Lama screwed someone over.  So what?

            We get it; this woman didn’t ask for it and it was therefore worth prosecuting the rapist.  Check.  Thanks for the rocking input.

            1. I’m glad this young woman got justice. She deserved it.

              And so did another young woman who was drunk and scared and calling what she thought were her friends to come over and help her. And instead of helping her, one of them raped her.

              She deserved justice too. And instead of helping her pursue justice, Ken Buck told the Greeley Tribune, where everybody could read it, that she had ‘buyers remorse.’


              And that’s the difference.

  3. Here is what the editor of the Colorado Springs Gazette, the state’s second largest newspapter and the paper that endorsed Buck after Bennet could not be bothered with meeting with the editoral board, had to say:

    That’s what Buck faced when he explained to the victim why he could not pursue conviction. He explained with compassion that a jury would not convict because of information the defense would use. He said a jury might interpret her complaint as “buyer’s remorse,” a statement misrepresented by opponents to make it sound as if Buck questioned her motives. Buck advised her of other legal remedies but warned that they may lead to hurtful defense attacks. To be certain he was making the right call, Buck asked the office of then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, arguably the state’s most aggressive sex crimes prosecutor at the time, to review the case. Lacy’s prosecutors concurred with Buck.

    Does Buck lack compassion for victims? Hardly. He is the first prosecutor in the country to achieve a hate crime conviction involving a transgender victim. He has an impressive list of high-profile rape and date-rape convictions. His department’s relentless prosecution of rapist Brandon Bradshaw resulted in a 192-year sentence.

    But facts mean nothing in games of cheap political smack. ProgressNow activists know that most voters abhor rape and know little about the law, so they’re exploiting this victim’s trauma in order to defame a candidate they don’t like. They know some voters may confuse Buck’s decision with approval of rape. It’s an act of idiotic political malice. – Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

    Read more:

    1. This is not a major newspaper conducting an objective investigation into the situation. It’s a shill for Buck expressing his desire for Buck to win – “explained with compassion” (that’s not how the recipient of his so called “compassion” interpreted it).

      The point that needs to be addressed, and it doesn’t apply to just Buck, is that if there is a credible report of a crime (like the accused confessing on tape) then a jury should decide whether the evidence is sufficient – not the prosecutor.    

      1. and you know the confession is not coming in? Are you supposed to make stupid decisions because the compainant wants you to?

        Here is what the major Denver newspaper has to say:

        With that sad fact in mind, one can argue that by avoiding what is believed by several law-enforcement experts to be an un-winnable case, Buck showed more sensitivity to the woman in this case than he would have had he put her in the witness chair for a defense attorney to lambaste.

        By using the words “buyer’s remorse,” one could argue that Buck was trying to demonstrate to the accuser what kinds of tactics would be waged against her.

        Sometimes the truth is insensitive. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Buck’s recognition of it makes him so.

        1. couldn’t you at least detain the accused and question him, or even investigate the crime? Perhaps you can get a confession at that point. You can at least stand behind the victim who has presented you with clear evidence that a crime occured, whether admissable in court or not.  

        2. Surely you read yesterday’s thread.

          At least one criminal lawyer posting on this maintains that the taped phone call is admissible in CO court.

          Combine that with CO’s definition of rape (victim says no, victim too impaired to give consent), and the decision not to prosecute starts to look questionable. With that backdrop, go back and read the conversation between Buck and the victim. It’s really hard to escape the fact that he appears to blame the victim.

          1. You do remember, don’t you, that the defendant is presumed innocent.  He does not have to testify.  

            If he does not, the taped call does not get in.  The thread yesterday was in the abstract.  Admissions can be used on cross if the witness testifies.  If he does not, it does not get in.  This is the type of case where it is likely the defense counsel would get all he needs to win on his cross of the compainant, if it got that far.

        3. By using the words “buyer’s remorse,” one could argue that Buck was trying to demonstrate to the accuser what kinds of tactics would be waged against her.

          If he said that to her behind closed doors it might be excusable as an example of what to expect from a defense attorney.  That’s not what happened (H-Man statements at odds with reality?  Do tell?)  He said it in a public statement to the news media.  Insensitivity in extremis.

          I’m telling you that’s what circumstances suggest to people, including myself, who have looked at it.

          “Including myself” means “I think it was OK with you at the time.”

          Buyers remorse is his opinion of the case.  He said it.

            1. However, let me give you some comments from the demographic which votes the most.  The more this is publicized, the more it consolidates Buck’s base.   Dems are stupid not to realize that this cuts both ways. Also in Greeley, there are “town and gown” issues as well as generational ones.

              What I am hearing from women of a “certain age:”  The girl was a s*(t, she asked for it.”  “In my day, we waited until we were married.” “She’s lucky that is all that happened.”

              And from the men? Universally, “she was a c()&t*#)#r.”

              The danger which I continue to see, is that the “conservative repubs” are ready to roll us right back to the 50’s.  The dems with their namby pamby voice and responses are up for losing a hell of a lot more than Congress and the state legislature.

        4. I am a lawyer.  There is no evidence that the confession can’t come in.  Nothing but speculation that I have seen.  Prosecutors use conversations taped without the Defendant’s knowledge all the time.  It’s called a “wire.”  Also, I haven’t seen it confirmed by anyone in the Boulder DA’s office that Buck actually called them.  Is this just another lie in a long string told by this man.  I agree, the DA has the absolute right to determine what to prosecute.  But here’s the deal, we as citizens have the right to obtain information and make a judgment as to whether he was right and to make a determination as to whether what he said disqualifies him for office.  I say it does, you say it doesn’t.  The Gazette say it doesn’t.  That makes the vote 1-1.  Cause see, even though the Gazette can try to buy an election with corporate funds, until the Supreme Court says differently you still have to be a real live person to vote.  Please quit be sanctimonious about election advertising.  All of them do it.  How about Buck implying that health care reform tanked the economy.  Just a total misrepresentation, and he knows it.

            1. but I’m an attorney and I don’t agree with it.  Under the rules of evidence, statements of the party opponent (here, the criminal defendant) are not hearsay and are admissible.  C.R.E. 801(d)(2).  The victim would have to be on the stand, as the first-hand witness to the statement, but not the defendant.

              But at a certain level that’s beside the poitn, imho.  The issue is not that he decided not to prosecute.  The issue is the attitudes reflected in his comments to the victim.

              1. Though I’m not a lawyer, it’s pretty standard to have as a witness whoever witnessed the action that will be most favorable to your case.  If 10 people witness an act and 3 of them are the suspects, you call the other 7 and let the defense call the suspects if they think it will help their case.

                In this instance, the police were witness to the report they took from the suspect, and the victim was witness to the phone conversation.  The prosecution would call the police officer who witnessed the suspect saying what they reported he said, and then the victim herself; based on those witnesses, the associated evidence would be entered in and would be valid – no suspect needed.

  4. His boots do have bullshit on the inside – they’re full of it.

    1) The victim is talking to the media, so no exploitation is going on.

    2) The victim was advised at the time by Buck that her case might make news headlines that were uncomfortable, and she was okay with that.

    3) It’s really the attitude displayed by Ken Buck in this case that might make rape victims less willing to come forward and make a complaint.

    Ken Buck and his campaign continue to defend his public “buyer’s remorse” comment, and that’s disturbing.

      1. Several newspapers have confirmed her identity and granted her anonymity, as is standard practice for sexual assault victims.

        Just exactly why do you want her name? Are you planning to dig through her Facebook page and see if you can find any pictures of her looking slutty?

      2. If you, or anyone, attempts to reveal the identity of this alleged victim on this blog, it will be swiftly and severely dealt with. We’re not sure if that’s what you’re setting the stage to do here, but we want to be absolutely crystal-clear on this. It will not be tolerated.

        That said, you can plainly read above the victim’s interview. That’s how one can pretty straightforwardly know she “is talking to the media.” In fact, the obviousness of that is what earned you this warning.

              1. You would out a rape victim, then? Is that what you are hinting at, Beej? I think you can answer without actually doing it. So would you?

                As much as I’d hate to see you go, Beej, if you would do something so unspeakably low, banning is too good for you.

                  1. I did not know Mathematics had Law as a prerequisite.(/sarcasm)

                    A victim is still a victim regardless of the arrest of a perpetrator.

                    who Pays your tuition bj?

        1. That’s the usual exception to the don’t name the victim rule, though some newspapers still don’t name it.  If she does things like go on television, the dam inevitably breaks.

          1. Not really.

            I’m surprised to see so many conservatives supporting Ritter though.  This just in; DA’s are supposed to prosecute and put rapists away.

            Not just easy cases.  They are all we have.  This duty should not be taken so lightly.

            The tough thing about being fair and decent is that you have to do it all the time.

            I can find at least one story where even Hitler did something good for a single person.  I can find at least one story where even The Dalai Lama screwed someone over.  So what?

            We get it; this woman didn’t ask for it and it was therefore worth prosecuting the rapist.  Check.  Thanks for the rocking input.

          2. This is actually really surprising. I expected shills to defend Buck from any and all allegations. As GOPwhitepower said, Buck could rape and murder a baby and Republicans would still vote for him.

            But I didn’t imagine every Buck supporter would come here and say there was no rape. This is arguably worse than what Buck himself did. The support of disgusting assholes like you and BJ makes Buck look like much more of a sexist, because he’s courting you people. His “buyer’s remorse” comment was dogwhistle politics for misogynists.

  5. agreed with Ken Buck’s handling of the case. And the Boulder D.A.’s office had a lot of experience with these type of cases because of CU. Ken has prosecuted numerous rape crimes and put people in jail for them, including one guy for 192 years. It’s all in the gazette article H-man referenced. This is exactly what all the newspapers say it is, a blatant attempt to smear Ken Buck right before the election.

    1. Only Ken Buck has. If Buck were a competent prosecutor, he’d realize using alleged statements of the Boulder DA’s office is called “hearsay.”

      You are lying about a rape to protect other Republicans. If you’d lived in Florida during the Mark Foley scandal, I’m sure you’d be telling us all those underage interns were asking for it too.  

      1. reported flatly that the Boulder Da had agreed the case was unprosecutable.  But it didn’t state its source and that source may have been Ken Buck.  If Buck was lying, however, I can’t imagine the Boulder DA office, now led by none other than Stan Garnet, would be shy about issueing a statement to that effect.

        1. It’s a huge part of Buck’s defense, that the Boulder DA agreed the rape victim was probably just asking for it. I’d think a decent newspaper would, I don’t know, ask.

          The Greeley paper is clearly using Buck as an unimpeachable source for information about Buck. Not what I’d do if I were a journalist, but what do I know?

          1. It’s one thing to have the Boulder DA’s office say “yes, we reviewed the case” without specifying what exactly they reviewed…  It’s another to have them say “we did an independent investigation about the case” or “we reviewed the material Buck’s office sent us”.  And still another to have them say “we saw the stuff that’s been in the papers the past few days, but it was offset by other information”.

            In other words, there’s “reporting” and there’s reporting.  (Obligatory bold face for Cory Gardner’s benefit.)

            1. just that they had look at what buck had sent them and agreed that the case could not be prosecuted.  Obviously, nobody iun 2005 expected this to be the centerpiece of the 2010 U.S. Senate race.  

              It still seems to me that Buck was justified in not filing charges in this case, given the totality of the circumstances.

               It also seems to me that he had a bad case of foot in mouth disease for using terms like “buyer’s remorse” when he should have stuck with “burden of proof” and “reasonable doubt.”


                1. but obviously, nobody expected in 2005 to find this the major topic on coloradopols for three days running.

                    It was handled by Boulder (and I’ve seen no reason to believe it wasn’t) like any other similar request to backstop another jurisdiction.  I’ve seen DAs do that before.

            1. If continue to post this repeatedly I will ask Pols to ban you for posting hints toward my identity. I know they’ve been very lax on it, but surely attaching a post identifying me as a student to every single one of my posts crosses the line.

              1. That’s at least the sixth whining time you have tried to get somebody bounced from the board.  Maybe I should ask pols to bounce you because you posted hundreds of defamatory lines calling me a “pansy,” a clear anti-gay slur and violation of the terms of use.  Of course, being the odious dishonorable person you are, you never apoligized for that slur.

                If anyone deserves to be ousted from this board, it’s you, troll.

                1. We’ve deleted several comments where this exchange became gratuitous, and insulting to members of our community.

                  We’re all about free speech, but it would be really cool if our community (eyes one in particular) could avoid making alternatives to our permissiveness seem attractive, even if in the long term they are not.

                    1. Oh no! Not allowed to use anti-gay slurs anymore? How oppressed you must feel!

                      It’s strange how Steve Harvey never got a chance to explain away his “cracker” comment, but BJ has called Voyageur “pansy” literally hundreds of times in his comments and signature with no repercussions whatsoever. I guess BJ’s “I’m an idiot” excuse is more believable, but I wonder how long he can keep getting away with it.

                    2. You have proven your undoubted courage by desperately avoiding military service, which only a real man would do.  Since I am a pans…opps, lily livered coward… as proven by my military service, here is my proposal.

                        Meet me, face to face, any time, any place, and repeat that.  

                        That’s all I ask.  The only condition I place on the encounter is that I want to be upwind of you.  Because you will definitely shit your pants if you ever come face to face with me.

                        Deal?  You pick the time, you pick the place.


                    3. Nov. 2nd Be there, and man up up to your vile attacks against Ken. Nah, it’s you that’ll be pooping your pants.

                    4. Should Buck win, a) he won’t have a victory parade, because this isn’t Nazi Germany, and b) if he did, it wouldn’t be of fucking Election Day. Therefore, you were dishonest in your response.

                      You are a loser of the lowest form.  

                    5. Just like his cowardly self to need someone to speak for him.

                      A) All candidates have election night parties.

                      B) Yes, this does actually happen on election day.

                      Get some brains, and tell V-ger to man up and talk to me himself.

                    6. or your efforts to get me to describe my {appealing genitalia} would have gotten you into some sort of trouble.

                    7. Which is always good for a laugh, since they’re nonsensical when directed at people who haven’t displayed any ignorance or cowardice on this blog. That’s called “projecting.”

                      Anyway, here’s something to consider: Voyageur maybe hasn’t logged in yet, so he hasn’t had an opportunity to see what you wrote.

                      Now then, YOU’RE the coward until you answer his challenge directly – either admit that you don’t want to meet him face to face (which will garner my respect, at least – honesty always does), or name an ACTUAL TIME AND PLACE that you will.  

                    8. But I understand that you would only dare meet me with a squad of goons that you could hide behind.  You’re a coward and a sociopath.  But not entirely stupid.  The idea is that we meet one on one, sociopath.  

                  1. This exchange would never haven gotten gratuitous if one of the exchangers would have been banned long ago. Re: hijacking threads; re: spamming; re: name-calling way beyond “asshole”; re: repeated threats of outing; re: refusal to discuss real issues of the thread; re: stupid shit like BwaaHaHaHa!

                    You want to have a quality spot? Do more than just deleting a few comments.

                    Police it or butt out completely.  

                    1. It is the one thing that all decent people of all political persuasions can agree on.

                        Of course, it was written by bjwilson83 and he is the sole defender of it.


                    2. Ralphie used the dread p-word. Going to delete his comment too? No, because you are biased hypocrites.

                    1. That’s probably another lie and explains why he is so sensitive about his real “work.”

              2. I am not outing you for acknowledging you are a student. nor asking the entity of who is paying your tuition. (every post HS student has tuition of some sort and YOU have stated you are at CSU)

                You said previously you do not pay tuition as you are not taking classes just now…Well then you aren’t a student just now either.

                I am just pointing out how much of an arrogant hypocrite you are bj.

                Along with how far removed from actual Reality you are.

                So I still maintain “Reality does indeed have a Liberal Bias.” ~ and you haven’t a clue of what reality truly is bj.

        1. Go read the update to the diary. There’s no connection between Progress Now and the story at the Independent.

          Deflection and messenger shooting are sure signs that you got nothin’.

    2. As you and your boss seem to like to ignore, this is not about whether or not your boss should have prosecuted the rape case, but about how your boss treated the victim by telling her that she asked for it.

  6. Really, I feel as if I’m reading a London tabloid:

    as now reported coast to coast


    And my personal favorite:

    it’s looking more and more like an endgame, folks

    That last is truly priceless! Do you have some sort of data to support that statement?

    Move on, guys: This ‘story’ appears to be getting little-to-no serious traction, in either mainstream media or anti-Buck advertising, in a way that will move the meter in this race.

    You look silly suggesting (ad nauseum) that this matter will implode Buck’s candidacy.

    Wishes are not in fact horses, and this nag has been thoroughly flogged to death by CPols.

    (None of this is meant to suggest that Ken Buck is anything other than on odious, far-right nut. Merely that CPols has, once again, let your juvenile partisan heat eclipse any meaningful analytical light.)


    1. What a relief, I was beginning to think the 225+ stories on this in Google News I can search for right now were becoming a problem for Buck. How silly of me!

      Thanks for the concern trolling, I’m glad to hear that even though you think Buck is “odious,” the most odious thing that has come to light so far makes you want to attack them instead of him.

      BTW, I see David Harsanyi tweeting about this like his heart is going to break, and the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote the most over the top hand wringing editorial to appear in Colorado since “Ritter=Jimmy Hoffa.” They must agree that there’s nothing to see here, eh?

      1. In this case, I think he has it right as a matter of law, wrong as a matter of politics.

        I am not convinced that Buck went beyond the bounds of his discretion as a prosecutor.  The key here is that he referred the case to the Boulder DA for a “second opinion” and they agreed it was not prosecutable.  That comes from the Greeley tribune and other sources.  If it turns out that is not true, Buck is a lying sack of crap and dead meat.   But if it is true — and I am confident that if it weren’t, the Progress Now crowd would release that statement with warp speed — then Buck acted appropriately.

          But he was also insensitive in his choice of language.  I would have told the victim “If we go to a trial you will have to endure a lot of abuse while the circumstances of the case make it highly probable that one or more jurors will conclude the People have not met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt.”

         Instead, the “buyer’s remorse” line, whatever the context, was unnecessarily inflammatory.  That creates a political problem for Buck, and it’s not going away.

        Will it cost him the election — I don’t know.  But if he does lose, this will have played a dual role.  It’s damaging in its own right, and it forces him to spend the closing weeks of the campaign saying “I am not an insensitive clod.”  

          I have never regarded the “I am not a crook” strategy to be the optimal political stance.  In the case of a candidate already saddled with a major woman problem, it’s a very awkward problem indeed.

        1. Only houses that I feel are built on shaky rhetorical and/or logical foundations.

          That’s not all houses, just many.

          I will admit to a bias in favor of well-argued posting, and against flamers.

          1. almost all your posts have the same theme, that you are above the battle and entitled to much more than the rest of us give you.

              It may be that we will never be worthy of your very high standards.  It’s also true that you contribute very little to this dialogue except for your sense of superiority.

            1. consisted of writing

              and the sound of the chickenhawk is heard in the land

              something like 17-20 times?

              Yeah Voyageur it’s true: I DO hold people – particularly smart people like you – to higher standards than that. What you hear from me isn’t ‘superiority’ V, rather disappointment.

              1. Show me a link to a post by you did not adopt the pox on both your houses  and you don’t measure up to my greatness tone?

                 Or don’t.  Somehow, I can live without your approval.

                1. didn’t bother to respond to it….

                  I’m not great, V: I can be an ass like anybody else. But try not to broadcast that too openly in blog postings that are illogical. Or sophomoric (not refering to you here, V.). Or ad hominem. Or use 4-letter words in place of an intelligent vocab. Or emotion in lieu of reason. Etc.

                  I think there are a number (I’m thinking of a number greater than 1….) of my posts that aren’t ‘superior’ to use your words. Not my obligation to chase them down however, V. Most of those ones are directed squarely at the authors/editors of CPols. Because I do it’s true hold them/you to a higher standard than the hoi polloi…..

                  1. I can be an ass like anybody else.

                    In the ass department, you’re maybe reserve second baseman in the AA Boise Jackasses.

                    The real major leaguers on this board, like the one who stoutly insists he doesn’t know the word “pansy” is an anti-gay smear, can put more stupidity into a single semi-colon than you can in a 300 word post.

                      Are are prone, however, to pox on both your houses posts.  That’s fine, I was just rather surprised that you took umbrage at the term.

                    Pax vobiscum

                     p-s- I have always loved that deGaulle quote.

                    1. and seem to have been particularly so over the past week or so, given your less-than-intellectual responses to Beej….

                      My taking the time to respond to you is  pretty much a case of ‘casting pearls before swine’, I’m afraid.

                      At least I’m willing to admit my own foibles. Unlike you, Voyageur……

                      For what it’s worth – and as you as an old duffer should know – the word ‘pansy’ in its original incarnation had nothing to do with homosexuality. It is/was, as Beej suggests, more a comment on masculinity and courage – unrelated to sexual preference.

                      (surprised to find myself in agreement with Beej on anything, but will take him over your over-the-top histrionics anytime….)

                      have a lovely evening!


                    2. “Gay” in its original incarnation had nothing to do with homosexuality. This is no argument against its current reincarnation, is it?

                      But, it is quite reasonable for The Beej to argue that he was not aware of the current meaning of “pansy.” He is so utterly clueless about so much that I’m convinced he was ignorant about this too.

                    3. but your comments showed up on my computer. Next time, maybe, the two of you will use your inside voices?

                      No offense taken (or intended). 😉

                    4. for someone whose only seeming purpose on the blog is to metagripe.

                      I don’t remember electing an ombudsman, do you?

                    5. (that may not have been clear from Pols’ formatting…..)

                      certainly wasn’t directed at that spx dude, who IS funny, albeit only unintentionally.  🙂

                    6. You are a major league ass.  I underrated you!

                      Sorry about that.  But at least you still rate high on the self-esteem scale.

        2. Here is how it is playing in the state’s largest newspaper.

          The gazette has already come out with an editorial referring to the story as sleazy or words to that effect.  

          My sense is to the left, maybe it helps mobilize your base.  To the right, you guys are sleaze bags.  To the all important middle, who the hell knows, probably some of each, not any real net change.

      2. liberal blogosphere, many of the articles are not especially critical of Buck. Just b/c you find 225 mentions on Google doesn’t mean they’re all of an anti-Buck character.

        I think my point still stands: this story doesn’t seem likely to move the meter in this race. And CPols has a penchant for wishful thinking/hyperventilating, without seeming to realize it.  

        1. but I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s clearly not having an impact on your posts, so I think we should just move on from your silly ‘stories.’

          1. on CPR’s ‘Colorado Matters’ show in 2007.

            About my experiences in the Balkans, Kenya and Iraq. Including my Bosnian rape counseling work in the 1990s.

        2. Once upon a time something happened to me.  I still can’t say or write it.  And it wasn’t even that big of deal.  It’s been like three years.  Feels like last night.

          Just asking, Mr. Sensitivity.

    1. I’m surprised to see so many conservatives supporting Ritter though.  This just in; DA’s are supposed to prosecute and put rapists away.

      Not just easy cases.  They are all we have.  This duty should not be taken so lightly.

      The tough thing about being fair and decent is that you have to do it all the time.

      I can find at least one story where even Hitler did something good for a single person.  I can find at least one story where even The Dalai Lama screwed someone over.  So what?

      We get it; this woman didn’t ask for it and it was therefore worth prosecuting the rapist.  Check.  Thanks for the rocking input.

    1. Not really.

      I’m surprised to see so many conservatives supporting Ritter though.  This just in; DA’s are supposed to prosecute and put rapists away.

      Not just easy cases.  They are all we have.  This duty should not be taken so lightly.

      The tough thing about being fair and decent is that you have to do it all the time.

      I can find at least one story where even Hitler did something good for a single person.  I can find at least one story where even The Dalai Lama screwed someone over.  So what?

      We get it; this woman didn’t ask for it and it was therefore worth prosecuting the rapist.  Check.  Thanks for the rocking input.

  7. and frankly, I’d love nothing more for the entire rest of the campaign season to be consumed with an argument over whether Ken Buck thinks some rape victims deserve to have their cases prosecuted and some don’t.

    Oh – and if any of them get pregnant thanks to the assault, Ken Buck doesn’t think they should be allowed access to emergency contraception or abortion either one. He’s all for criminals’ rights when it comes to forcing a woman to bear the child of a rapist.

    Really, knock yourselves out.

  8. I think every single rightie troll posted the same link within minutes of each other. Classic.

    Thanks for telling us about the Buck supporter with the evidently easier to discern case. This proves nothing about the case in question, and at the very least you guys can STFU about “exploiting rape victims” right now.

    1. The shills all received their talking points and were assigned blogs to try to overwhelm. All this does is emphasize how badly Buck handled this case. It appears his preconceived (pun intended) ideas about what a proper women would do interfered with his ability to perform his job in some very significant case(s?). Suggests he might not have the temperment to be a Senator.

  9. That is to attack Buck. He cannot run on a voting record he knows will be his undoing. He even flip flopped on card check trying to distance himself from his past.

    Buck has the ability to respond to the negative ads as Bennet’s own record is very well known in Colorado.

    Bennet ignored us while in Washington and as Buck said “he will ignore us no more.”

  10. 1.  There is an extraordinarily high probability that the suspect’s statements would have come in, whether or not the suspect testified.  

    2.  There may have been many other factors which played into Buck’s decision not to prosecute, including the fact that the past sexual history between the alleged victim and the suspect would potentially have been admitted under Colorado’s rape shield law.

    3.  The suspect is presumed innocent unless and until the DA proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  For that reason, it would be more appropriate to refer to the alleged victim as an alleged victim.  The crime hasn’t been proven.

    4.  Speaking from experience–and that is all I am going to say on this subject–Buck is well known for taking politics into account in deciding whether and how vigorously to prosecute.  I wonder what the political leanings and contributions of the suspect were.

    5.  There are abundant and more valid reasons to vote against Buck.  But, he’s a DA, and his record as DA is fair (and the only) game.  It is quite hilarious to see the Bucksters here bitch about the publicity this case has generated.  DAs (Buck, Ritter, Garnett, Chambers, etc) are political animals who seek the spotlight.  When that spotlight turns into an electron microscope examining the minutiae of their prosecutorial records, they have no cause to bitsh.  

  11. Chuck Plunkett is not a news reporter, and his column is not news.  It is a blog, and he is an opinion writer.

    He’s on the record as calling Health Care Reform “the travesty that is Obamacare.”  Objective source, that.  I’m sure he has no dog in the Senate race fight.

    This just in: Mike Littwin thinks Buck’s scary.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

91 readers online now


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