10/1/10

Buckpedaling on "Social issues"

Ken Buck, the GOP candidate for the US Senate, having 'backed away' from his initial support of Amendment 62, is now 'backing away' from taking positions on what he calls 'social issues'.

Here's what happened. Buck came out for Amendment 62. Then he found out that it would ban common forms of birth control. He said he wasn't aware of that when he initially supported 62, though as we see from articles in the Denver Post, there is some doubt as to the truth of his statement. Actually, Buck is now completely ignoring Amendment 62, his campaign saying that he will not take a stand on the measure. In fact, Buck is not taking a stand on any state ballot initiative. That's what his campaign says.

If you don't take a stand, you won't have to be 'backing away' from any previous commitment that might cost you some votes:

Now, faced with televised attacks from incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet over those strident views, Buck is painstakingly trying to modify positions that may not match the beliefs of the unaffiliated moderates who will ultimately decide the contest.  - Denver Post, Sep. 19 2010.

Where I come from, we used to call that "waffling". Today, we call it "Buckpedaling." We could also call it "pandering for votes."

Buck will fit right in with the current crowd in Washington. They don't read what they are voting for, or understand much of it, so he'll fit right in if he's elected, and they are great panderers.

What Buck seems to be missing by ignoring so-called 'social issues' is that these issues, such as Amendment 62, can drastically affect his constituency. If Amendment 62 is passed, and most common forms of birth control become illegal in this state - which is a clearly stated objective of the amendment's supporters -  the affect on the majority of women and families will be profound. With Amendment 62 in effect, the state, now driven by the religious beliefs of the Christian Right, would dictate family planning policy to every Colorado family, and the state, now driven by the religious beliefs of the Christian Right, would dictate to every woman how she will handle her most personal affairs.

Ken Buck won't take a stand on that. Worse, he has "Buckpedaled," and continues to even waffle on his "Buckpedaling," as he also now says he will not vote for Amendment 62.  I could respect him for supporting Amendment 62 even though I would strongly disagree with him ... but how can you respect a man who 'backs away' from anything perceived as controversial - and therefore 'vote sensitive' - and then refuses to take a stand either way, but also says he won't vote for it after he said he would? It's enough to give one a pain between the ears.


Here are Buck's previously stated positions on 'social issues', before he 'Buckpedaled':

Opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest
Opposition to giving a 14-year-old girl raped by her 13-year-old brother the option to use the "morning after pill"
Belief in the idea that the "stage of development" when humans become "persons" is the "single cell," which would ban fertilization procedures
Support of Personhood Amendment giving citizenship rights to fertilized eggs
Opposition to common forms of birth control
Pledge to oppose "pro-abortion" judicial nominees or any person applying for any government position.
Pledge to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion
Support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensuring states that outlaw gay marriage do not have to recognize gay marriages conducted in states that permit them.
Opposition to gay marriage
Support of public posting of the 10 Commandments
Support of a weakening of the separation of church and state, supporting a vague "coexistence between government and religion"
Opposition to funding Planned Parenthood health clinics
In favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.