A Few Words About Hubris And Ken Buck

2010 GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck.

2010 GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck.

Amid the GOP's ongoing struggle to find an opponent–any opponent–to challenge incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in 2014, the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels puts 2010 Senate loser Ken Buck's name back in the mix:

Buck for months has been mentioned as a likely candidate for state attorney general, but in recent days several high-profile Republicans have announced their candidacy for the office and the talk has switched to a Senate bid.

"We have been talking about it, and I'll leave it there," his wife, state Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, confirmed Tuesday.

Much of the speculation about Buck's political future has been on hold since his battle with cancer was disclosed in March. Bartels reports today that Buck's cancer remains in remission, and he is undergoing his last round of chemotherapy this week.

It's true that Buck lost in 2010 by a relatively small margin to appointed incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. But the underlying reasons for that narrow and trend-countering loss for the GOP in an otherwise GOP "wave year" revealed a fatal flaw in the newfound political vigor offered by the "Tea Party." Buck lost the election, as our readers know well, largely due to overwhelming opposition from women voters. Buck's hard-line views against abortion and gay rights, and October revelations of a rape case he had refused to prosecute claiming the victim had "buyer's remorse," broke the back of a Senate campaign that wasn't supposed to lose. Since 2010, this race has become a model for Democrats to alienate women and independents from wedge-issue hardliners.

We get that the GOP bench is very thin for 2014, but re-running Ken Buck is not the answer.

In fact, the suggestion seems almost…masochistic.


20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Diogenesdemar says:

    Hmmmmm …

    Oh well, . . . at least we've still got Nixon not to kick around any more . . .

  2. davebarnes says:

    I think it is great that Ken is running. It proves that the GOP is still the Party of Hate®.

    I was a solid Repub for the first 35 years of my life (starting with my "I Like Ike" button). Now, I will likely never vote for a Repub again. Even if that person is the best candidate.

    • BlueCat says:

      Good call. As has been demonstrated at every level,  Republican majorities must be fought tooth and nail in order to prevent horrible legislation. Unfortunately that means that all those opposed to the poisonous legislation that comes with all  GOP majority legislatures, school boards and City Councils and the obstructionism that comes comes with a Republican US House and enough votes in the Senate to filibuster at will cannot, in good conscience, vote for any individual Republican. At least not until the present incarnation of the GOP has managed to destroy itself and a new GOP emerges.

    • BlueCat says:

      Oh and if you're homesick for the old GOP,  google the 1956 Republican platform. It pops right up as it's it's been flying around the intertubes these days.



      – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/45166/coming-soon-paul-ryan-stumping-for-coffman#comment-519848

      • BlueCat says:

        I honestly don't know what happened here. I tried to copy a link from a comment of mine yesterday and it appeared not to work so I just suggested the google, hit post and got all this. I really am pathetic when it comes to this intertubes stuff.

    • ElliotFladen says:


      If you view a republican as the best candidate, why would you not vote for her or him?

      • Curmudgeon says:

        Elliot, Didn't you say you'd never vote for a Democrat, only "not vote" for the Republican, if the Democrat was the better candidate?

      • davebarnes says:

        Because I will not enable the Party of Hate®. I want these disgusting poisonous toadstools destroyed.

      • Gray in Mountains says:

        for me it would involve an assessment of the likelihood that such an R would just abandon all principles and reason to join a gang the would insist on voting to repeal Obamacare 37 times, etc

      • At the simplest level it's tactics vs. strategy. If I make a tactical (locally important) move to support a Republican because they're the better candidate, and then they turn around and support a Republican majority, then I've won a battle and by doing so I've lost the war.

        Beyond that… In 1994 Republicans managed to convince the US citizenry that Democrats as a whole had been in power in Congress for too long and had lost their way; they needed to be replaced in bulk. At the time, many people said Democrats just needed to be taught a lesson in being out of power for a while, and that they'd get better. Well – Republicans need to "get better", if they even remember how what "better" is/was. They need a good swift nationwide kick out of office to remind them that governance isn't supposed to be all "my way or the highway".

  3. ClubTwitty says:

    The problem for Mr. Buck:



    For U.S. Senate?  The question to ask: The Hill: Report: Rubio to introduce Senate bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks





    • BlueCat says:

       If they want people to believe that they're all about freedom, promoting prosperity and jobs jobs,jobs, they really ought to take five minutes off from their all uterus, healthcare reform recall, gays and voter suppression all the time legislative agenda

  4. exlurker19 says:

    I think Buck would be a good choice.  Doubt if any Repub could take out Udall and it's not like Buck didn't already implode his career the last time he ran for Senate.  Buck has nothing to lose that he hasn't already lost.

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.