President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
August 06, 2012 07:31 PM UTC

Obama Gives Romney The "Ken Buck Special"

  • 25 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The Hill, though you’ve probably already seen it this weekend:

President Obama’s campaign on Saturday unveiled a new television ad airing in key swing states, which hits GOP candidate Mitt Romney over Planned Parenthood funding and contraception.

The ad is the latest in a series of web and TV blasts as Obama and Democratic allies have sought to bolster their already strong lead among female voters and push back against GOP efforts against public funding for abortion and an administration birth-control mandate…

“Dishonest political attacks will not change the fact that President Obama has not turned around the economy, and his policies have hurt women and families all over the country,” [Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul] added.

Romney has said he would “get rid” of Planned Parenthood if elected and that he opposes the administration birth control ruling.

We haven’t seen any fact-checker analysis of this ad yet, but we’re not sure what can be specifically called out here as “dishonest.” Which is still another parallel to the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Colorado between Democrat Michael Bennet and GOP nominee Ken Buck, the simple fact that these primary-era statements from Mitt Romney are problematic to his general election campaign–especially the key demographic of suburban women voters.

Buck’s narrow loss to Bennet in a GOP-trending election has been chiefly attributed to his 17-point defeat among women, which stemmed from Buck’s toxic stands on women’s issues. Buck’s infamous “I don’t believe in the exception for cases of rape and incest” line during the primary set him on a course of alienation from women voters from which he never recovered. And nobody was “dishonest” in reporting what Buck had volunteered unbidden.

Fast-forward to 2012…

Tweet
Share

Comments

25 thoughts on “Obama Gives Romney The “Ken Buck Special””

    1. and only pro-Romney is you believe that funding cancer screening for women is a bad thing.

      Not everyone believes in the fairy soul Barron and Romney stepped in it by declaring his support for the War on Women.

    2. You know, the not-that-long-ago lengthy stretch of years when W.Mitt (a) would tear up imploring millions of voters to believe how sincerely pro-choice he was and (b) even attended a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/09/460710/romney-attended-pro-choice-fundraiser-in-1995/?mobile=nc)

      So it’s quite hard to say whether quoting Mitt is pro-Mitt or anti-Mitt when Mitt’s views are at best a moving target, at worst nonexistent because the man has no soul that would yield any actual core beliefs — not about reproductive rights, gun rights, taxes, health insurance mandates, or any of the other issues on which he’s 100% flipped.

    3. without planned parenthood’s health care services, including those for women who want to maintain healthy pregnancies, Barron but I guess that’s OK with you since a tiny percentage of their services have to do with perfectly legal abortion services and they also provide affordable birth control so people can have the size family they want.  You know, the way 95% of Catholics choose to do?

      By the way, Barron.  Are you married and if so have you or your spouse ever used any birth control methods?

      Also, since the goal of the rhythm method is the same as the goal of all the other forms of birth control, why is it OK?  Isn’t that also seeking to interfere with God deciding how many kids you have? Is it OK for the same reason long married Catholics with grown kids, especially rich powerful ones, can get annulments when they want a divorce so they can pretend the marriage was never valid and get married again in the church?  Or is it OK because it’s so much less effective you figure God can issue an over-ride?  Of course if God can impregnate virgins there should be no problem over-riding any kind of birth control, right?

    4. It’s good to have his clearly stated, unambiguous position on Planned Parenthood communicated to the voters.

      The rest of his positions are pretty much fairy dust.

      Maybe his VP pick will be David Copperfield, so he can get a little bit of that Smoke and Mirrors Magic going for him.

  2. Unfortunately for the US, returning to the WH will be BHO II. His massive $1B is campaign cash, billions more in SuperPACs and Union Boss GOTV will carry the day easily for the President.

    Liberals don’t want to jinx it. It terrifies the right. And the press would prefer a nail-biter. But the fact is that finding Romney’s path to victory is getting harder every day.

    There’s a secret lurking behind everything you’re reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know-or should-but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business. The secret is the electoral college…

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…

    Just checkout RCP and count it up. Obama only needs to win FL or OH+IA or CO+VA …. the easy winning combinations are endless.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

    Has this been why Obama has played so oddly his cards? You may have a strong case on O.D.S., but don’t fear the power of your fearless leader. I believe he knows the numbers.

      1. Romney wins with +36 bazillion percent of the vote.  Republicans are going to count all of their dead ancestors as eligible voters going back to the dinosaur age.

        We heard it here first from the Tad Pole.

        In a related note Tad Pole is also predicting that Michael Phelps is going to flop at the Olympics.

        Can this guy see into the future or what?

    3. “… of your fearless leader.”  I think that sentence must make sense but I can’t understand it.  Not that I really want to, just wanted to point out that the thought could be clearer.

    4. Since your dear Rasmussen showed a tie two months ago, all polls have showed an Obama lead in CO (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html)

      In short, 2012 is looking like 2010 and 2008 in that Colorado consistently is very slightly bluer than the country as a whole.

      So by what logic, or based on what facts, do you think Obama wins the U.S. but loses CO?

      (Do please try do answer without a racial slur against the President – I know it’s hard, but this blog isn’t your Klan meeting, Lib.)

      1. Bennet won with a late surge of voter turnout in the final week.  It was a squeaker but Democrats had a great ground game in 2010 and the Obama field supervisors have been hired and in place organizing neighborhood activities since March.  I was involved with the Obama Campaign in 2008 and I think the organization is better staffed and more coordinated this time around.  OFA is paying for a ground game that can’t be detected through polls.

  3. Women don’t care about contraception or healthcare. Unless, maybe their husband is a dr.

    If this ad is supposed to appeal to women – it fails. There’s no kids, no pets, no household cleansers no housework labor saving devices.

    And I remember the PP thing was refudiated cause women can do at Walgreen’s everything that PP does.

    http://gawker.com/5791100/watc…  

  4. It’s always fascinating when you’re being sold one brand’s product, and they try to assimilate some of another brand’s positive associations.  Think Lincoln car w/ Karl Levinson speakers, or  Betty Crocker cake mix with genuine Hershey’s chocolate.  

    Obama is glomming on to Planned Parenthood’s brand to improve his own image.  Why wouldn’t he?  Locally and nationwide PP enjoys favorability ratings above 65%.  Regardless of attempts by opponents to stigmatize the organization, almost all women have had an experience where they, or one of their friends or family members found themselves where Planned Parenthood was the only reproductive healthcare provider accessible to them.  From that experience they know of the high-quality, respectful, confidential services the organization provides which have nothing to do with abortion.  With such favorables, one must at least respect the ideological purity of teabaggers and Republicans who have made it their life’s mission to rid the public sphere of Planned Parenthood; it certainly isn’t poll driven.

    Now that the eggemendment will be on the ballot for the third time, Colorado has a leading opportunity to stick it to Romney.  Make him take a position on the proposed amendment.  Label him as an extremist if he supports it, or a mealy-mouthed mollycoddler to the fetophiles if he doesn’t.  Win-Win.

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

166 readers online now

Newsletter

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