DSCC Hits Buck Hard on Rape Case, Abortion

That’s the latest offering from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the second ad on the air attacking GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck over his refusal to prosecute an alleged case of date rape in 2005. This ad takes a slightly different tack from the ad that went up earlier in the week from Women’s Voices Women Vote, focusing on the underreported fact that the perpetrator in this case admitted to the crime.

This ad further underscores Buck’s vulnerability to attack on issues key to attracting votes from women, including but not limited to this individual case of alleged rape. Polls are very clearly demonstrating the efficacy of this line of attack, which could well be the upset factor in the race–the issue that ends up costing Buck his “wave year” victory.

Demographically, what we’re looking at could have great import for future elections: women voters, and a strong campaign against a socially conservative candidate focused on women’s issues, decisively effecting the outcome of a critical U.S. Senate race. We can only marvel at this emergent change of fortune in the home stretch of such a long campaign, and note again how it wouldn’t be happening if Republicans had picked Jane Norton instead of the “Tea Party’s” choice.

53 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. GottaFindaBetterUserName says:

    before some idiots (who will not be named but you know who you are) post dumb stuff.

    Carry on…

    • sxp151 says:

      What ever happened to Jane Norton, anyway?

      If she had held a unity rally with Buck early on, would Buck have developed a reputation as an anti-woman candidate? Hillary Clinton’s supporters often accused Obama supporters of sexism during their primary, but the very public makeup seemed to pretty much dispel that as a serious force. Norton disappeared for a month before finally, reluctantly agreeing to support Buck. Why?

      How many of the women who are now supporting Bennet were former Norton supporters who found the “Because I don’t wear high heels” remark offensive? How many were formerly undecided and thought Buck’s demand that rape victims have their assailant’s baby was too awful for women to tolerate? And how many were former Buck supporters who realized he actually meant it when he told a rape victim she was asking for it?

      Is there anything Norton could still say to convince women that Buck doesn’t think they’re second-class citizens? And if so, why hasn’t she said anything in the midst of all this?

      • EmeraldKnight76 says:

        and like other Republican women, she just can’t bring herself to come out and defend him? It may have been easier to support him before he started revealing how deep his contempt for women really was. Just because she’s a politician doesn’t means she stops being a woman.

        Not saying I have any insight into Norton specifically, or women in general, but this is my take on why we haven’t seen Norton come to Buck’s rescue.

  2. Jane Norton? A better candidate?

    Really?

    A quick autopsy –

    1. Jane Norton, basically, declared war on all 56 Muslim countries in one, fell swoop – stateswoman? No…

    2. Jane Norton never apologized for Ref C & D and actually defended it – fiscal conservative? No…

    (and quick note – fiscal conservatism is the BEST, perhaps ONLY, reason to vote Republican lately… but even that’s fading)

    3. Jane Norton trotted around Jan Brewer, celebrating the endorsement of the lady who authored racist 1070 – appealing to minority voters? No…

    4. And lastly… John Bailout McCain personally flew out to endorse and help Jane Norton – ugh… nevermind on this one

    Conclusion –

    If Jane Norton was the GOP nominee, Michael Bennet would be winning by over 20 points

    Autopsy Complete

    • sxp151 says:

      it’s quite another for Ali to become a Christian.

      I agree that Norton would have had plenty of her own problems in this election, but more narrowly she wouldn’t have had this problem, that people think she’s a sexist. She might even have done pretty well among women voters. That’s true despite her extreme positions on abortion and such, because voters have a hard time imagining a woman really despises women (while a guy who says the best reason to vote for him is that he doesn’t wear high heels is much more vulnerable on that front).

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      Buck had a better chance of winning because of teh crazy this year but doesn’t that speak volumes about the quality of the candidates the Republican have fielded.

      Dan Maes  – Another Republican failure

      Tom Tancredo – Chronic Loser

      Ken Buck – 1st pro-criminalization candidate to lose because of his misogynist positions

      Jane Norton – Creepy loser

      Scott McInnis – Amateurish plagiarist

      Josh Penry – Coward

      Don’t vote for incompetence

      Vote Democratic  

    • Voyageur says:

      Jane passed.

      Opposing Ref C, and backing 61-62-101 isn’t fiscal conservatism.  It’s nihilism.\

      • Aristotle says:

        just because that’s what it means if you want to drown government in the bathtub. You don’t want government – period. The very definition of anarchy.

        • Fiscal conservatism would have been asking the public for money, at a specified amount, designated for specified projects

          Ref C & D had little designation in how much money was being asked for, nor a decent amount of specific designation, in terms of where the money would be allocated

          Ref C & D did not follow rules of fiscal conservatism one bit

          Again – I’m not against the government needing money – just ask us for an amount and specify what it’s for – it’s not that hard

          • DaftPunk says:

            You favor direct Democracy for fiscal allocation as opposed to legislative allocation of tax receipts?

            I’d bet even Republican legislators disagree with that.  

          • Voyageur says:

            I spent years covering the Joint Budget Committee.  You really can’t expect 5 million Coloradoans to pore over the line by line.

            Actually, neither does TABOR.

            Without C’s passage, this state would never have recovered from the last recession, let alone this one.  The TABOR ratchet would have destroyed higher education root and branch.

          • State Line says:

            If so, why not ask NYC voters if they agree a mosque should be allowed to be built near Ground Zero? (Nope, didn’t think you’d like that idea…..)

            For that matter, why not subject ALL decisions currently made by the state legislature to public votes??

            Etc., etc.

            We do have a system of representative democracy, imperfect as it is.

            That said, California has instituted a system whereby every taxpayer can receive a ‘receipt’ showing how many dollars of their individual income taxes go to which specifici departments of state government – a pretty cool idea IMHO.

  3. dwyer says:

    He can’t.  The hysterical ads don’t help.  The dems have been yelling “wolf” for thirty years over this issue….real women, IMHO, are not scared anymore.  

    You want the women’s vote:  Ask Buck about FMLA.  

    • Pam Bennett says:

      Young women may not know how the horrible history of back ally abortions, but if these far right extremist Republicans get in it is possible.  Buck is one of the many white guys dictating what women have to do, including being breeding stock for rapists.

      Women have no rights if Buck decides what they can do with their bodies.

      • droll says:

        so they don’t die alone.  But she’s pro-choice.  That always surprised me.

        Turns out one of her classmates got pregnant at 17 and, not wanting to disappoint her mother, convinced a few boys to “help” her by beating her stomach.

        She goes home to bed, much happier, but bleeding, she assumes it’s the fetus… no big deal.

        She bled to death during the night.  Her mother had to find her in a pool of blood.  Like that wasn’t upsetting.

        First point, that most pro-lifers don’t seem to get, is an abortion clinic wouldn’t have preformed the procedure for that reason.  Instead the girl would’ve had counseling and eventually the mom would’ve been brought in.  Everything would’ve been fine.

        Second point is the fear of doctors in these situations.  Turns out scared 17 year olds aren’t the best at medical tests.  She hadn’t been pregnant.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          mostly because I’ve said the same thing before and didn’t give you a very good answer when you made mention of it.

          There are exactly how many black men in the Senate right now? One? And he’s leaving in November? How many men of color in the House right now? 42.

          Moreover, there are currently 357 men and 78 women in the House. In the Senate, there are 18 women and 82 men.

          For a great many of us, it appears that white men are still running the show.

        • Pam Bennett says:

          From the inception of our United States, white males, in particular rich white males, ran our country. That is the part of the Constitution that has had a few Amendments to clear up the issue.

          First big change: African-American men could vote. But, that brought the segregationist laws after the white men noticed they were not running the show the way they wanted. That came with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

          Second big change: Women were not happy letting the big lug make all the legislative decisions and once enough men realized they were cut off the 19th amendment passed.

          Throughout the history of our country white males have run the whole salami. They make the laws and everybody has to follow them.

          Colorado is of the tiny handful of states with a “high” number of women in the legislature. IIRC 38%. And, it is an expectation that once the blood is staunched after the election the number of women in office will drop for the first time since the 70’s.

          You might be right that the anti-choice crowd are not predominately really white males. But, I am willing to stay with my original statement that the majority of anti-choice anti-abortion controllers are white males. You say, I say. He sez, she sez.

          • State Line says:

              the majority of anti-choice anti-abortion controllers are white males.

            and suggesting (as you very clearly did) that white males in general believe that rape victims should carry their babies to term.

            Touchy? Only to poor, paint-them-all-with-the-same-brush ‘logic’. Maybe you should measure your rhetoric a bit more carefully.

    • sxp151 says:

      But a Senate with a Republican majority can. The only thing stopping them is the Supreme Court, which has an anti-abortion majority on it already, just waiting for a test case.

      Partial-birth abortion was already banned by a Republican Senate, and the ban was upheld by a conservative Supreme Court. A lot of people thought it was impossible since there had to be a life-of-the-mother exception, but the ban is in place now.

      Nothing is impossible as abortion law goes, and you calling everyone else dumb doesn’t make your weak argument any stronger.

      Thanks for doing your part to sabotage Democrats though!

        • DaftPunk says:

          for saving me the trouble of digging up that link.

          A senatorial hold on President Obama’s nominee for the Pentagon’s top health policy position is compromising the military’s ability to address quality and cost issues and cope with an increase in wounded soldiers from Afghanistan, Undersecretary of Defense Clifford Stanley said on Tuesday, CQ Today reports…

          Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) placed a hold on Obama’s nomination of Jonathan Woodson, a vascular surgeon and Army Reserve brigadier general, to be the assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs. Wicker objects to a provision in the Defense authorization bill (S 3454) that would allow women to obtain abortion services at military facilities (Oliveri, CQ Today, 10/20)…

          Stanley said the effect of not having a top health policy official at the Pentagon “has been significant” at a time when the military is facing rising suicide rates, traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder cases and increased strain on families — all areas that are under the purview of the assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs. Two interim officials have been in place since the position became vacant in April 2009.

          A senior Democratic congressional aide said “leadership (is) severely lacking and quite discombobulated” in the absence of a permanent assistant secretary. Lawmakers have called for proposals to cut costs in the Defense Health Program — one of the military’s fastest growing budget items — but it is “[k]ind of hard to move both within the department and in Congress without an assistant secretary of Defense,” the aide said.

          Your “one senator has no effect on abortion policy” nonsense makes me think you’re drinking from the same fountain as H-Man, and dubious  that you could be a woman.  

    • TimothyTribbett says:

      Their fears have proven to be well founded. Wadhams said it right to my face.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      and pound him in the last week of the campaign on his climate change denier positions.  If Buck rejects climate change as an important issue then he looks old and obsolete like John McCain.

      Bennet should just hammer him on his abortion extremism coupled with his climate change denials and homophobia.  Bennet can close the deal by detailing hot out of step with Coloradans Ken Buck really is.

    • Voyageur says:

      The U.S. Supreme Court can outlaw abortion.

      The U.S. Senate confirms Supreme Court Justices.

        Thus, a Sen. Buck can indeed play a key role in outlawing abortion.

      • dwyer says:

        Pasted here for your reading pleasure:

        This is the scenario which I can envision and which is terrifying”

        The repubs take the senate and Gingsberg resigns or dies opening up a seat on the court and in the interim leaving a clear conservative majority to rule. The repubs refused to confirm any of the Obama appointees to fill the vacancy. So this is what a conservative majority on the supreme court can do.

        1) Congress pass a law saying that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on anyone born in the United States unless both parents are citizens.  ACLU and a hundred other organizations file suit.  It goes quickly to the Supreme Court.  The court rules that the legislation is constiutional.  Millions of people lose their citizenship.  The vote of Hispanics is depressed.

        2) DITTO for the following:

           Roe v. Wade is overturned and given back to the states.

           Federal laws governing public accommodations, voting rights, anti-discrimination laws of people (including children) on the basis of disability, race, age, gender are all overturned and given to the states to decide.

           Sodomy and other aspects of “homosexuality” are declared by Congress to be illegal.  The Court concurs.

        It would take a convergence of events for Buck to be instrumental in forcing the issue back to the States.  I can see that happening…but in the broad context of over turning a whole slew of currently constitutionally protected civil rights.   But the ads being run say in effect that Buck will outlaw abortion…that gives him too much power.  And, it is an exaggeration which can back fire….encouraging the right wing….

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.