0 votes

Please, everyone, look at these clips of Ken Buck

From the Colorado Republican Senate Candidates Forum in Colorado Springs on 1/19/10:

Here's Ken Buck again without Jane Norton:

And please, just try to understand what we're dealing with here in Colorado! Jane Norton is the anointed one as far as the party "powers that be" are concerned. It would be nice if our liberty candidate, Luke Korkowski, were still in the race, but he dropped out last October. Ken Buck is our only hope to send a strong message to the Republican leadership that says, "we will NOT allow you to choose our candidates for us!"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

i liked his answers to those

i liked his answers to those questions. i don't know what was coming out of that robot's mouth in the left corner.

Questions & answers posted on Campaign for Liberty

Campaign for Liberty has a list of the questions asked of Ken Buck along with his answers. Check them out.

"Nothing is as it appears; everything is smoke and mirrors"

Are you kidding me?

Dick Wadhams?

"Freedom Is A Road Seldom Traveled By The Multitude." - Frederick Douglass

I don't understand

the question.

One question Ruth ...

Where are his responses to the survey?

I don't know

I'm as anxious as anyone to see them, and disappointed they haven't been made public yet.

Here's what I think....

I think that you have a right to support whomever you want to support in Colorado. Each state is different with it's own challenges. I know Colorado pretty well, and over the past 30 - 40 years it has been taken over, to a great extent by California progressives in the Norther half. And the OTHER half of the voters are BIG TIME neocon military families, whose living is earned via the military/industrial complex.

To have a candidate such as Buck, who is talking about the Constitution and limited government, and cutting deficits AND is also talking about limiting wars to only only Constitutionally valid conflicts, and pulling back US involvement throughout the world .... is clearly to have a candidate that is "outside the norm" and is "Buck"ing the trend.....NOT something to sneeze at.

Having said that, and having watched the posts re the C4L over the past few days, it seems to me that the ONLY argument that should be addressed regarding Buck's ads is;

-- DID C4L give money for a political ad for a specific candidate. If they did, I believe they have broken the laws regarding their mandate, and have used members funds inappropriately.... outside of their legal, stated purpose. This must not happen again if the organization is to continue (no matter what candidate the ad would be for) They are either ALLOWED to do this or they are NOT allowed to do this.

OR -- Did "local" C4L representatives in Colorado, enthusiastically raise money themselves for this ad.... but then place the C4L LOGO in the ad, thus IMPLYING that C4L was sponsoring this candidate. If they did that then THEY have gone over the allowable line and must immediately remove the logo from the ad and make it clear that C4L is NOT endorsing their candidate. It is possible that more "training" is needed for these representatives.

ANYONE has a right to raise money and run an ad as long as there is not a misrepresentation made to the public about who endorses this person.

One VALID concern in this issue is whether C4L, OR their representatives are CLEAR on what is and is not legally allowed under the mandate and legal status that C4L holds. Mistakes happen with young organizations... and among passionate supporters. It is a matter of growing in experience and wisdom and correcting mistakes. (Remember all of the legal problems that were involved with the Blimp project. Sounded so good to the volunteers, until they found out the LAW.... always a bummer).

Good luck in the elections, Ruth. I hope Colorado gets new, liberty minded Senators. We need to replace as many old timers as possible in Washington.

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!

The money is an issue, but the C4L brand must be protected.

The Branding at the end of the ad is typically how an endorsement is done. You can't use the Microsoft brand or the Disney Brand or characters without permission. And then only in ways that prevent their brand from being misunderstood.

The Buck ad with C4L brand was not properly done IMO

Hundreds of thousands have worked to make the brand stand for somthing, for specific principles, by our hard work. There are many million of hours of labor been poured into the Campaign for Liberty brand.

The money is peanuts, except as it affects the brand, which is our banner (but not our lord or master).

Free includes debt-free!

Agree 100%

The USING of the C4L "logo" or brand must be protected just as Disney's "logo" or brand is protected.... BY LAW.

It is in C4L's best interest to figure this snafu out immediately and get their troops educated in the fine points of what can and cannot be done. Or C4L could run into REAL trouble in the future.

It is my understanding from reading all of the posts that C4l CANNOT endorse any ONE candidate. If that is the case, this is a serious mistake that must be rectified.

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!

Thank you

and to tell the truth, I wasn't trying to get anyone to agree with C4L's action, and was just trying to dispell the myth Ken Buck is a "blood thristy neocon warmonger," as one of our members said on a different post. Thanks again for helping me put this incident into proportion.

Free Cyanide pills for everyone

You can even choose green or yellow.

heh heh..

you have such a way with words lawson.

I disagree

Ken Buck may be somewhat toxic, but Jane Norton is cyanide.


that neob**** can't wait to hit Iran.


Jane Norton can't wait to hit Iran.

I Like Buck Now

I never saw Buck until I saw the second video above.

He looks like a good one.

Since this is the first time I saw Buck I was suprised he did not have horns and a pitchfork - based on the descriptions of him on the dp that is what I expected.


anyone that advocates continuing the wars is not a good candidate... it cost money (that must be extracted from the productive sphere of society) and lives. if you wish to associate with a candidate that promotes aggressing against the person and property of our brothers and sisters in the Middle East that is your business.


He's calling for a quick end to the wars, maybe not as quick as Ron Paul's "just come home" position, but at least he's not calling for endless wars like his opponent, Jane Norton.

it appears

we were all a little rash. i apologize for calling you out.

No need to apologize

You weren't unreasonable. All I wanted was for everyone to calm down a bit, and it appears to me you did, and that's good enough for me.

Perhaps you will get a chance to stand for "just come home"

Candidates are concerned that a "end War" message will hurt their campaign.

There was something in the way he talked of his son going to war. Not against dirt poor farmers and hill people but agaisnt the Chinese industrial giant.

The priciple of non-intervention and making friends with everyone and trading with them might give him hope and an idea he can stand behind.

Free includes debt-free!

Calling for a quick end to the wars?

Have you read his position on Iraq and Afghanistan? I did, and walked away with a MUCH different opinion.

His website

is very vague when it comes to his positions on the wars. He has the word "Iraq" on it, but says nothing specific about that war. His statement on Afghanistan, "We are told this effort will take at least 10 years" is vague, too. Everything I've heard him say in interviews and at meetings says he wants to end the wars quickly. Do you bother looking at or listening to any of my links?

Of course I looked at them.

And at no point in time did he mention that wars should be Constitutional and declared by congress.

But you can relax about me, I don't even live in CO so I cannot vote for or against him.

I understand that you like him and that's fine with me. If you want "vague" for your representative, that's fine with me too.

I know he's not ideal

but the Colorado party leadership has been "encouraging" candidates to drop out of the US Senate race, and the State Governor's race as well, to give a better chance to the candidates they want. Their tactics have not been unlike the ones we faced when we all ran for National delegates for Ron Paul. We have to take a stand against the likes of State Chair Dick Wadhams: http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/99749-an-innerview-... and let them all know we will not just sit back, shut up and vote as we're told.

Please take a look at these comments:

"I'm saying we take our marching orders from the Constitution!" ~ Ron Paul

"I will always look first to the advice of the generals." ~ Ken Buck

That's pretty clear to me. Ken will always look first to the military, not the Constitution. The Constitution is not a guide-line or a reference book. It is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I think you're extrapolating a bit far

I think Ken Buck's comment is a criticism of Obama ignoring the advice of his generals. He's simply saying he would consider their advice, not put their recommendations above the Constitution.

Fair enough...

You say you *think* Ken Buck's comment is a criticism of Obama ignoring the advice of his generals.

I *think* he is not a non-interventionalist. The very core of freedom. You know, Trade with all nations, alliances with none.


Ken Buck talks about his foreign policy in this interview, starting at 40:58 or so: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rocky-mtn-blogs/2009/05/13/rock...
At 47:35, one of the hosts, Ben DeGrow, says Ken Buck stops just short of sounding "isolationist," which as you know, is the word republicans use to try to discredit our noninterventionist views.