---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Eric Schultz [mailto:*******@dscc.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:32 AM
Subject: Buck's 2005 Case All Over National Blogs

DAILY KOS: CO-Sen: Buck didn't prosecute rape case because he believed victim had abortion
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/11/909555/-CO-Sen:-Buck-didnt-prosecute-rape-case-
because-he-believed-victim-had-abortion

THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT: Questions Raised About Ken Buck’s Record Prosecuting Rape
Cases in Colorado
http://washingtonindependent.com/100270/questions-raised-about-ken-bucks-record-prosecuting-rape-
cases-in-colorado

THE HUFFINGTON POST: Ken Buck Explained To Alleged Rape Victim Why He Wouldn't Take Her
Case (AUDIO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

WASHINGTON MONTHLY: Political Animal

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026081.php

COLORADO INDEPENDENT: Buck’s refusal to prosecute 2005 rape case reverberates in U.S. Senate
race
http://coloradoindependent.com/63491/bucks-refusal-to-prosecute-2005-rape-case-reverberates-in-u-s-
senate-race

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND: Ken Buck (R-CO) refused to take rape victim's case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x473809

COLORADOPOLS: Buck's "Woman Problem" Takes Serious Turn

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/14057/bucks-woman-problem-takes-serious-turn

DAILY KOS: CO-Sen: Buck's growing problem with women

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/11/909470/-CO-Sen:-Bucks-growing-problem-with-women

POLITICALWIRE: Rape Case Haunts Buck

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/10/11/rape_case_haunts_buck.html

HULABALOO: Psychopathic Tea Party Misogyny

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/psychopatic-tea-party-misogyny.html

TAYLOR MARSH: Tea Party Exposed: Ron Paul Says Abolish Medicare, Ken Buck Blames Rape Victim
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/10/12/tea-party-exposed-ron-paul-says-abolish-medicare-ken-buck-
blames-rape-victim/
DELAWARE LIBERAL: Tuesday Open Thread
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/10/12/tuesday-open-thread-54/

SOONERBLUE2: Mirror, mirror on the wall

http://soonerblue2.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall/

DAILY KOS: CO-Sen: Buck didn't prosecute rape case because he believed victim had abortion
by Jed Lewison
October 12, 2010
One of the reasons Colorado GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck declined to prosecute the rape of a 21-
year-old college student in 2005 was that he believed she had previously had an abortion of a child
fathered by the suspect. According to Buck, that abortion gave the victim motive to lie about the suspect
"to get back at" him.
Of course, Buck's theory made no sense -- given that an abortion would have been the victim's choice, it
would be the suspect who would have a revenge motive, not the victim. Moreover, Buck himself is an
outspoken foe of abortion, opposing it even of cases of rape and incest, giving Buck himself a plausible
motive to want to punish this young woman.
But perhaps the most obvious problem with Buck's theory is that he did not have enough facts to support
it. The only evidence that the victim had an abortion came from the suspect himself. The victim denied it,
saying she had had a miscarriage. Yet Buck chose to believe the suspect. From Colorado Independent's
transcript (their story here and excerpts from the audio conversation here):
BUCK: There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume (name of
possible suspect redacted) knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for
(unintelligible) and that is part of what our calculation has been in this.
VICTIM: I’m interested to hear more about that, my motives, for what this has been.
BUCK: You have, you have had HIS baby, and you had an abortion.
VICTIM: That’s false, that’s just false.
BUCK: Why don’t you clarify?
VICTIM: I did have a miscarriage; we had talked about an abortion. That was actually year and a
half ago. So ...
BUCK: That would be something that you can cross-examine on, that would be “something that
might be a motive for trying to get back at somebody.” And it would be a (unintelligible). And it’s part of
what we have to take into account whether we can prove this case or not. And there are a lot of things
that, um, you know, for as why weren’t not prosecuting the case. We’ve got to weigh all that, and it not
something that I feel comfortable with, but something I have to be.
What makes this so infuriating isn't just that Buck partly based his decision to forego prosecution on his
unfounded belief that she had previous had an abortion of the suspect's child -- it's that he also
threatened her with public humiliation if she hired a lawyer to compel prosecution.
M#2 [An unidentified male who attended meeting with victim]: We’ve talked about a motion to
compel prosecution, and that’s the only other option. Ultimately that’s going to be [Name redacted]
decision. But that’s really the only option.... Whether or not we’re going to do that, I don’t know. Incredibly
high burden .
BUCK: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered
event.
The irony, of course, is that Buck was probably right about the case becoming "very public." But he
probably never imagined that he would be the one who was getting burned. If that happens, there will at
least be some measure of poetic justice in this case.
THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT: Questions Raised About Ken Buck’s Record Prosecuting
Rape Cases in Colorado
By Jesse Zwick
October 11, 2010
Five years ago, Colorado’s GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case while
acting as Weld County District Attorney, reports our sister site the Colorado Independent, and with three
weeks before the election, all the lurid details are getting dredged up once again:
The alleged assault occurred five years ago. A man entered the alleged victim’s apartment and
had sex with her while she was drunk, she says. As she passed in and out of consciousness, she says
she told him “no” and tried to push him away. If he had been a stranger, the case may have played out
differently, but he was a former lover, and she had invited him over.
Those circumstances seem to have made all the difference to Buck. [...]
He said the facts in the case didn’t warrant prosecution. “A jury could very well conclude that this
is a case of buyer’s remorse,” he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to publicly call the
facts in the case “pitiful.”
If he had handled it with a little more sensitivity, the victim, who does not want her name used,
says it is possible she may have accepted the decision and moved on. But Buck’s words — as much as
his refusal to prosecute — still burn in her ears.
“That comment made me feel horrible,” she told the Colorado Independent last week. “The
offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he (Buck) not attacked me, I might
have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.
Buck is leading by a small margin in his race against Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), but his support is
already seriously lagging among female voters on account of his views on abortion and birth control, not
to mention various additional off-color remarks:
Buck’s problems connecting with women voters in the Senate race likely began with his support
for Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment, which would make even some common forms of birth
control illegal. He also said people should vote for him in the primary instead of former Lt. Gov. Jane
Norton because he doesn’t wear high heels.
The latest news about Buck’s record prosecuting rape cases as district attorney has the potential to sink
his support among women (and men, for that matter) still further.

THE HUFFINGTON POST: Ken Buck Explained To Alleged Rape Victim Why He Wouldn't Take Her
Case (AUDIO)
Sam Stein
October 11, 2010

A five-year-old rape case that was never prosecuted is suddenly causing major ripples in the Colorado
Senate race and headaches for Republican candidate Ken Buck.
Three weeks from Election Day, stories have suddenly emerged about Buck's refusal to follow up on rape
allegations involving a University of North Colorado student during his stint as Weld County District
Attorney. He declined to file criminal charges against the alleged victim's attacker on the belief that not
enough evidence existed to win the case, a conclusion that is not entirely rare with such delicate cases.
Renewed criticism, however, has erupted over Buck's handling of the case in light of some of his newly-
resurfaced remarks, including a conversation he had with the victim and his suggestion that a jury would
view the rape charges as merely her "buyer's remorse."

Buck's campaign told Politico on Monday that the entire topic was a non-story driven by a partisan
organization. "Reputable news organizations should not be an echo chamber for Progress Now [the
progressive group that first surfaced this incident]. We obviously can't trust them," Buck spokesman Owen
Loftus said.
The Huffington Post has obtained the audio of the meeting Buck held with the victim as well as the
pertinent police report -- both of which, critics say, make him seem callous and even hostile in dismissing
her pleas.
"I know there are a lot of circumstances prosecutors take into account when prosecuting cases," said
Kjersten Forseth, the interim executive director of ProgressNow Colorado. "I just think she was treated
badly by Ken Buck. As a prosecutor, you are there to be a victim's advocate and not the rapist's advocate,
and I just felt he was being more like the rapist's advocate."
In the five-year-old conversation, which the victim taped without Buck's knowledge -- which is within
Colorado law -- Buck insisted that the circumstances of her alleged rape were inconclusive and would not
provide him with an airtight case. The victim, then a 21-year-old student, had admitted she was
intoxicated and invited her alleged attacker to her apartment. Her alleged attacker was also a former
lover, though she said she hadn't seen him for more than a year.
"It appears to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him," Buck said on
the hazy recording, before acknowledging she may have been unconscious at the time. When the victim
went on to say she had not consented to sex, woke up only to find herself being violated, and told the
man to stop, Buck seemed unmoved.
LISTEN TO EXCERPTS OF BUCK'S CONVERSATION WITH THE ALLEGED VICTIM (Edited to protect
victim's identity):
"[W]hen you describe yourself as "bedfellows," as you did indicate that you were "bedfellows," it's hard to
convince a Weld County jury that this wasn't consensual, when that is your label," he said. "So there are
those kinds of factors. This office doesn't believe in blaming the victim for the conduct of the case, but we
do have to take into account what a Weld County jury sees in the relationship. You had consumed a lot of
alcohol. You had a prior relationship ... According to him, you were naked from the top up when he came
into the bedroom. So, there are enough indicators or indications that, in my opinion, make this impossible
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt."
At another moment in the conversation, Buck urged the woman not to seek alternate legal remedies,
floating the possibility of painful press coverage as a discouragement.
"Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There
are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume [redacted] knows about and that they
have to do with, perhaps, your motives for [unintelligible] and that is part of what our calculation has been
in this."
The victim decided not to seek legal remedy, though the extent to which Buck talked her out of it is
unclear. A source close to the woman told The Huffington Post that, as a college student, she did not
have the money "to hire an attorney and pay for it herself."
At the time, Buck insisted his position was crafted through a sober calculation about prosecutorial facts.
His office claimed to have consulted with the prosecutors in Boulder County who confirmed their analysis.
"[D]ate rape is absolutely a crime and we will absolutely prosecute it," Buck assured Coloradans. "I don't
want victims to be deterred from the pitiful facts in this case from coming forward."
Buck also claimed to have spent about two hours reviewing police reports before declining to take the
case, arguing that there wasn't a clear-cut path to proving rape. The report itself was detailed and
graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout,
there also were aspects of the file that seemed to invite further legal probing.
[WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT IS EXPLICIT]
I [the police officer] then asked [redacted] if he realized that the victim was intoxicated prior to coming to
her house. He stated 10-15 minutes after he arrived, he knew the victim was drunk. He stated his only
intention originally was to lay next to the victim. He did state that he realized the victim was drunk prior to
him having sex with her. He stated he has known the victim for 4-5 years and has seen her drunk many
times. He stated they have had sex many times when one of them was drunk. He states after more
questioning that maybe once or twice the victim said no. He stated he thought the victim did say no while
he was fingering her. He stated he does recall her rolling away and saying no. He stated he agreed and
then a short time later began touching the victim's back and again inserting his fingers into her vagina...
he stated after he had intercourse with the victim and climaxed, that he pulled out. He stated when he did
so, the victim was barely conscious and that's when he realized he had done something wrong.
[Redacted] stated he thought the victim did say no shortly after he had climaxed, and while he was still
inside of her.
Buck's office did not return a request for comment from The Huffington Post. Though Democrats either
familiar with or working against his campaign were quick to pounce on the story as further evidence of his
insensitivity to women's issues. In the Colorado Republican primary, one strategist reminded the
Huffington Post, Buck nearly blew the nomination by chiding his opponent for wearing high heels.
Forseth, meanwhile, applauded the victim's "gumption" in being willing to open up old wounds. She
acknowledged, however, that the case would not have resurfaced had she not approached the victim first.
"We tracked her down," said Forseth. "She wasn't looking to get this out there. But we managed to find
her ... I just wanted to see what the actual case was. I wanted to hear her side and see what the case
was."

WASHINGTON MONTHLY: Political Animal

Steve Benen
October 11, 2010

KEN BUCK'S CALLOUSNESS.... When it comes to women's issues, extremist Senate candidate Ken
Buck (R) of Colorado isn't exactly a champion. He is, for example, on record supporting bans on certain
forms of birth control and the criminalization of all abortion rights, even in cases of rape or incest. During
his GOP Senate primary, Buck even mocked his opponent for wearing high heels.
But revelations about Buck's handling of a 2005 rape case have put the candidate's attitudes towards
women in an even more painful light.
Three weeks from Election Day, stories have suddenly emerged about Buck's refusal to follow up
on rape allegations involving a University of North Colorado student during his stint as Weld County
District Attorney. While other prosecutors have filed criminal charges against alleged rapists in similar
cases, Buck declined, claiming insufficient evidence.
Renewed criticism has erupted over Buck's handling of the case in light of some of his newly-
resurfaced remarks, including a conversation he had with the victim and his suggestion that a jury would
view the rape charges as merely her "buyer's remorse." [...]
The Huffington Post has obtained the audio of the meeting Buck held with the victim as well as
the pertinent police report -- both of which, critics say, make him seem callous and even hostile in
dismissing her pleas.
At the time, a 21-year-old student had gotten together with a man she used to date. Intoxicated, the
young woman invited her alleged attacker to her apartment. She apparently passed out, but woke up to
find herself being violated. The attacker conceded to police that the woman had said "no," and the police
report added, "he realized he had done something wrong." The same report went on to say he felt "shame
and regret" and even tried to "apologize" to the victim.
Despite all of this, Buck concluded the case wasn't worth prosecuting. In his conversation with the victim,
in which Buck was recorded without his knowledge, he argued, "It appears to me and it appears to others
that you invited him over to have sex with him."
I realize that prosecutors have a variety of factors to consider before filing criminal charges, but in this
case, Buck was not only dismissive of an apparent rape victim, he had a police report in which the
attacker practically confessed to the violent crime.
I've long questioned Ken Buck's judgment. He does, after all, support repealing the 17th Amendment,
privatizing Social Security, eliminating the Department of Education, scrapping the federal student loan
program, and has even said liberals are a bigger threat than terrorists.
But these revelations about his record as a county prosecutor seem to make his judgment look even
worse.

Buck’s refusal to prosecute 2005 rape case reverberates in U.S. Senate race
Critics: Weld DA's treatment of alleged victim 'shows his general view of women'
By Scot Kersgaard
October 11, 2010

When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago, he
probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care.
He learned otherwise quickly enough as the victim demanded a meeting with him (which she secretly —
but legally — taped), organized a protest and made sure the media knew all about her plight.
Today, Buck is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Michael Bennet. He
leads narrowly but trails by double digits among female voters, many of whom believe his stances on
abortion and other women’s issues are draconian.
The alleged rape victim is back and determined to be heard. She told her story to the Colorado
Independent and provided the tape of their meeting (click here for a pdf of the transcript), in which Buck
appears to all but blame her for the rape and tells her that her case would never fly with a Weld County
jury.
“This case matters to the Senate race today because it shows his general view of women,” said Kjersten
Forseth, who is interim executive director of ProgressNow Colorado and has also listened to the tape.
“This shows us how he views women and what he thinks their role is. It shows us that even when a
woman is the victim of a rape he will not advocate for her. It shows that he is not a believer in women’s
rights. He will not side with rape victims. This case is a statement on what his beliefs really are,” Forseth
said.
“Do we want him making policy for the entire United States?” she asked.
ProgressNow is among organizations that have organized protests to draw attention to Buck’s stance on
abortion, which he says should be outlawed even in the case of incest or rape.
The alleged assault occurred five years ago. A man entered the alleged victim’s apartment and had sex
with her while she was drunk, she says. As she passed in and out of consciousness, she says she told
him “no” and tried to push him away. If he had been a stranger, the case may have played out differently,
but he was a former lover, and she had invited him over.
Those circumstances seem to have made all the difference to Buck.
The alleged perpetrator admitted the basic facts, as stated above, to Greeley police. The victim says the
police department recommended the man be arrested on felony charges, though they dispute that now.
With any other victim, this case may have ended when Buck refused to charge the man with a crime.
This victim, though, has worked as a rape victims’ advocate, and she refused to let the matter drop. When
her meeting with Buck got her nowhere, she organized a protest rally at the DA’s office. She spoke with
the media. Buck was forced to respond.
He said the facts in the case didn’t warrant prosecution. “A jury could very well conclude that this is a
case of buyer’s remorse,” he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to publicly call the facts
in the case “pitiful.”
If he had handled it with a little more sensitivity, the victim, who does not want her name used, says it is
possible she may have accepted the decision and moved on. But Buck’s words — as much as his refusal
to prosecute — still burn in her ears.
“That comment made me feel horrible,” she told the Colorado Independent last week. “The offender
admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he (Buck) not attacked me, I might have let it
go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.
It wasn’t just his public remarks that infuriated the woman. In the private meeting, which she recorded, he
told her, “It appears to me … that you invited him over to have sex with him.”
He also said he thought she might have a motive to file rape charges as a way of retaliating against the
man for some ill will left over from when they had been lovers more than a year earlier. Buck also comes
off on this tape as being at least as concerned with the woman’s sexual history and alcohol consumption
as he is with other facts of the case.
“She is very strong about her feelings,” said Forseth of the victim. “She believes a grave injustice has
been done and that she is a victim of the system.
“What’s most troubling to me about this case,” Forseth continued, “is the way he talks to her in that
meeting. There is just so much judgment, in his voice, toward the victim. I would think a district attorney
would be an advocate for victims and offer some support, but instead he offers indignation and judgment.”
The suspect in this case had claimed that the victim had at one point a year or so before this event
become pregnant with his child and had an abortion, which she denies, saying she miscarried. The
suspect’s claim, though, is in the police report, and Buck refers to it as a reason she may be motivated to
file charges where he thinks none are warranted.
“When he talks about the abortion as the reason she wants charges filed, that has nothing to do with the
law or this case,” Forseth says. “That is his personal bias coming into play. He’s bringing his own
personal beliefs and judgments to bear on this case, when he should be acting as a victim’s advocate.”
Buck’s problems connecting with women voters in the Senate race likely began with his support for
Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment, which would make even some common forms of birth
control illegal. He also said people should vote for him in the primary instead of former Lt. Gov. Jane
Norton because he doesn’t wear high heels.
Buck has not yet responded to repeated requests for interviews.
Greeley Police Sgt. Joseph Tymkowich said it is not accurate to say the department recommended felony
charges in the case.
“We asked the DA to review the case and decide whether charges should be filed,” he said.
The report, however, suggests that the police did recommend charges. “I advised (the suspect) that I
would be requesting a felony summons for sexual assault,” Detective Michael Zeller wrote in the report.
The same information was given to the victim, who told the Colorado Independent last week that it was
still her understanding the detective had wanted charges filed.
Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner said that isn’t the case. He said the case was handled “exactly
appropriately” by the DA. “This was a case that would never succeed in court. There was no chance this
would result in a conviction,” he said.
At the time, Buck said he sent the police reports to the Boulder County DA’s office for review as well, and
that they agreed with his analysis that this would have been a difficult case to prosecute.
The victim also says she showed the case to three different attorneys and was told by each that the case
for conviction was much stronger than for acquittal. “None of them could understand why he wouldn’t file
charges,” she said.
A rape victims’ advocate in Greeley told the Independent that this case seemed to be a turning point for
Buck. The Weld County DA’s office “learned a lesson from that case,” Deana Davies said. Davies is
coordinator of the Assault Survivors’ Advocacy Program in Greeley.
“He (Buck) came to us after that case and said, ‘We need to do things differently in the future. How do we
do this better?’”
“The way he handled that victim was unfortunate, but he did learn from that experience.” Davies said that
shortly after this case, Buck helped start the SART Program (Sexual Assault Review Team), which
includes law officers, victim advocates and others who review cases that may fall into gray areas or look
difficult to prosecute.
“I’d heard that as well,” the victim said. “That’s great. I appreciate that. Maybe something good came out
of this, but it doesn’t change anything with my case. If he had just called me once and said, ‘I’m sorry, I
screwed up,’ then I would have let it go. I would have said ‘I’m good’ and moved on, but that never
happened.”
This is the first in a three-part Colorado Independent series on Ken Buck’s handling of rape cases as the
Weld County district attorney and his stance on women’s issues. Parts two and three will run Tuesday
and Wednesday.

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.COM: Ken Buck (R-CO) refused to take rape victim's case
Catgirl
October 12, 2010
Sam Stein at Huffington Post:
A five-year-old rape case that was never prosecuted is suddenly causing major ripples in the Colorado
Senate race and headaches for Republican candidate Ken Buck.
Three weeks from Election Day, stories have suddenly emerged about Buck's refusal to follow up on rape
allegations involving a University of North Colorado student during his stint as Weld County District
Attorney. While other prosecutors have filed criminal charges against alleged rapists in similar cases,
Buck declined, claiming insufficient evidence.
Renewed criticism has erupted over Buck's handling of the case in light of some of his newly-resurfaced
remarks, including a conversation he had with the victim and his suggestion that a jury would view the
rape charges as merely her "buyer's remorse."
-snip-
The Huffington Post has obtained the audio of the meeting Buck held with the victim as well as the
pertinent police report -- both of which, critics say, make him seem callous and even hostile in dismissing
her pleas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refus...
The guy even admits he had non-consensual sex with the victim.

COLORADOPOLS.COM: Buck's "Woman Problem" Takes Serious Turn

by: Colorado Pols
October 11, 2010

Buck seemed skeptical about the ability to prosecute the case from the beginning of the
conversation.
"It's the totality of the circumstance ... prior relationship with him ... talk to the experts who try rape
cases and have not found a prosecutor yet who would ...," Buck said before being cut off by the victim.
"His statement says, 'When he finished, ... (reading police report) ... tried to get the victim to wake
the victim up so he could apologize.' How is that not 'physically helpless, meaning unconscious, asleep,
or unable to act?,'" she interjects.
Buck then pointed to the fact that she invited the alleged rapist to her apartment, and questioned
whether she ever verbally refused the man's advances.
"You told him how to get in ... It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him
over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no?," he
asked. "I'm telling you that's what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have
looked at it."
It's hard to say if this is the kind of momentum-swinging revelation that can decide an election, but it sure
has all of the components of one. And before anyone tries to pass the blame on this or offer up some
other explanation, remember this: like much of the negative press Buck has received, it is BUCK'S OWN
WORDS that make this story so bad for him. "A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer's
remorse," came from Buck's very mouth, and it's that single statement that may make the difference
between a negative story and a game-ending story.
-----
Fresh on the heels of our discussion yesterday of the growing disparity between support for GOP Senate
candidate Ken Buck among men versus women, and potential major consequences for Buck in this race,
the Colorado Independent's Scot Kersgaard is out with a story this morning that could dramatically
worsen Buck's problems. Excerpts from this new and detailed report on a 2005 Weld County rape case
that Buck dismissively refused to prosecute--a must read:
When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago,
he probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care. He learned otherwise
quickly enough as the victim demanded a meeting with him (which she secretly - but legally - taped),
organized a protest and made sure the media knew all about her plight...
The alleged rape victim is back and determined to be heard. She told her story to the Colorado
Independent and provided the tape of their meeting, in which Buck appears to all but blame her for the
rape [Pols emphasis] and tells her that her case would never fly with a Weld County jury...
With any other victim, this case may have ended when Buck refused to charge the man with a
crime.
This victim, though, has worked as a rape victims' advocate, and she refused to let the matter
drop. When her meeting with Buck got her nowhere, she organized a protest rally at the DA's office. She
spoke with the media. Buck was forced to respond.
He said the facts in the case didn't warrant prosecution. "A jury could very well conclude that this
is a case of buyer's remorse," [Pols emphasis] he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to
publicly call the facts in the case "pitiful."
..."She is very strong about her feelings," said Forseth of the victim. "She believes a grave
injustice has been done and that she is a victim of the system.
"What's most troubling to me about this case," Forseth continued, "is the way he talks to her in
that meeting. There is just so much judgment, in his voice, toward the victim. I would think a district
attorney would be an advocate for victims and offer some support, but instead he offers indignation and
judgment."
Uh, not good, folks, and that awful "buyer's remorse" quote in reference to an alleged rape victim both
outdoes and reinforces the ugly connotations of "vote for me because I don't wear high heels." And what
do you suppose, dear reader, will happen when somebody puts those two quotes together in a well-
funded TV spot? Something very bad for a man who wants to be a U.S. Senator.
And as we hinted yesterday, and the Independent hints further by identifying this story as the first in a
"three-part series," the worst revelations about Buck's "woman problem" could be yet to come...

DAILY KOS: CO-Sen: Buck's growing problem with women

by Joan McCarter
October 11, 2010

There's a story developing in the Colorado Senate race that could help explain this, coming from Ken
Buck:
I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I
believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother.
A 2005 rape case that Ken Buck refused to prosecute indicates that maybe his threshold for what is really
rape makes him less pro-life than anti-woman.
 When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago,
he probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care. He learned otherwise
quickly enough as the victim demanded a meeting with him (which she secretly - but legally - taped),
organized a protest and made sure the media knew all about her plight....
The alleged rape victim is back and determined to be heard. She told her story to the Colorado
Independent and provided the tape of their meeting, in which Buck appears to all but blame her for the
rape and tells her that her case would never fly with a Weld County jury....
He said the facts in the case didn’t warrant prosecution. “A jury could very well conclude that this
is a case of buyer’s remorse,” he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to publicly call the
facts in the case “pitiful.”
If he had handled it with a little more sensitivity, the victim, who does not want her name used,
says it is possible she may have accepted the decision and moved on. But Buck’s words — as much as
his refusal to prosecute — still burn in her ears.
“That comment made me feel horrible,” she told the Colorado Independent last week. “The
offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he (Buck) not attacked me, I might
have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.
It wasn’t just his public remarks that infuriated the woman. In the private meeting, which she
recorded, he told her, “It appears to me ... that you invited him over to have sex with him.”
He also said he thought she might have a motive to file rape charges as a way of retaliating
against the man for some ill will left over from when they had been lovers more than a year earlier. Buck
also comes off on this tape as being at least as concerned with the woman’s sexual history and alcohol
consumption as he is with other facts of the case.
You can read the transcript [pdf] of the meeting at that link. This part particularly stands out to me:
Victim: His statement says, “When he finished, ... (reading police report)... tried to get the victim
to wake the victim up so he could apologize.” How is that not “physically helpless, meaning unconscious,
asleep, or unable to act” (legal code)
KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based
on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment...
that you told him how to get in .... It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over
to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no... ?
She was incapacitated, her alleged rapist told the police she was incapacitated. And Buck tells her it was
her fault because she had a prior relationship with the man and invited him to her apartment. And if she
was inviting him to her apartment it was to have sex with him. She asked for it, in other words.
Here's a question for Buck, who doesn't believe in abortions for rape or incest victims. Does Buck believe
in acquaintance rape? Or is the woman always asking for it?

POLITICALWIRE.COM: Rape Case Haunts Buck

Taegan Goddard
October 11, 2010

A woman who claims she was raped five years ago has released a taped conversation between her and
Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) "that she says proves he tried to blame her for the
episode," Politico reports.
"The secret recording by the victim, provided to The Colorado Independent, reveals Buck telling the
woman the details appeared to show she consented to the sexual encounter, though he admits the
woman 'never said the word yes.'"

HULABALOO: Psychopathic Tea Party Misogyny

by digby
October 11, 2010
I wrote before about creepy Tea Party candidate Ken Buck's harsh views on abortion in case of rape or
incest and his bizarre implication that "saving the life of the mother" is open to interpretation:
I am pro-life, and I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I
believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it’s truly life of the mother.
Hey, if a few sperm receptacles have to die, it's a price that's well worth paying to avoid even one fetus
being aborted. Plenty more vessels where that came from.
He has a little problem with this sort of thing. (You'll recall that during the primary he said "why should you
vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels.") But McJoan finds evidence today that this is just the tip
of the misogynistic iceberg:
A 2005 rape case that Ken Buck refused to prosecute indicates that maybe his threshold for what
is really rape makes him less pro-life than anti-woman.
When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago,
he probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care. He learned otherwise
quickly enough as the victim demanded a meeting with him (which she secretly - but legally - taped),
organized a protest and made sure the media knew all about her plight....
The alleged rape victim is back and determined to be heard. She told her story to the Colorado
Independent and provided the tape of their meeting, in which Buck appears to all but blame her for the
rape and tells her that her case would never fly with a Weld County jury....
He said the facts in the case didn’t warrant prosecution. “A jury could very well conclude that this
is a case of buyer’s remorse,” he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to publicly call the
facts in the case “pitiful.”
[...]
“That comment made me feel horrible,” she told the Colorado Independent last week. “The
offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he (Buck) not attacked me, I might
have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.
It wasn’t just his public remarks that infuriated the woman. In the private meeting, which she
recorded, he told her, “It appears to me ... that you invited him over to have sex with him.”
He also said he thought she might have a motive to file rape charges as a way of retaliating
against the man for some ill will left over from when they had been lovers more than a year earlier. Buck
also comes off on this tape as being at least as concerned with the woman’s sexual history and alcohol
consumption as he is with other facts of the case.
There's more at the link. It's really sickening. But with the ascension of Tea Party values, despite their
affinity for certain right wing female politicians, this attitude is becoming more prevalent in mainstream
political discourse. The Christian Reconstructionist teabagger Sharron Angle is on record against
requiring maternity coverage and is pro-incest and rape forced childbirth. Rand Paul too. It's part of their
philosophy.
Not that this is particularly new but it's getting a whole lot more acceptable to say it. Here's Limbaugh
today:
"Mammograms are the convenant, the sacred covenant of feminazism"
If mammograms are now considered a leftist plot and are on the menu for derision and ridicule, then
basically they just don't care if women die. I don't see how else you can interpret this stuff.

TAYLOR MARSH: Tea Party Exposed: Ron Paul Says Abolish Medicare, Ken Buck Blames Rape
Victim
by Taylor Marsh
October 12, 2010
 “…and help these people who are dependent on the government. I think it’s wrong to be
dependent, and you’re right it shouldn’t happen. We should work for the day when these individuals can
take care of themselves once again, be self-reliant.” – Rep. Ron Paul
After Paul’s “self-reliant” rant, Lawrence O’Donnell pounced: “…That’s just code language to abolish
Medicare. You want to get rid if Medicare.” That’s the bottom line, even if Rep. Paul won’t be honest
about it.
People supporting Tea Party candidates just don’t understand the impact of what these candidates want
to do, or already have done in the case of Ken Buck, even if none of them have calculated what it means
themselves. Caterwauling about “smaller government” is convenient, but specifics matter. A lot.
See Sean Wilentz in the New Yorker, who makes the same case I’ve been making for well over a year:
[...] In 1906, early in the Progressive era, the humorist Finley Peter Dunne’s fictional barroom
sage, Mr. Dooley, put the social and political tumult of the day into perspective. “Th’ noise ye hear is not
th’ first gun iv a revolution,” Dooley remarked. “It’s on’y th’ people iv th’ United States batin’ a carpet.” A
century from now, or even a year from now, Americans may say the same about the Tea Party. For the
moment, though, it appears that the extreme right wing is on the verge of securing a degree of power over
Congress and the Republican Party that is unprecedented in modern American history. For defenders of
national cohesion and tempered adversity in our politics, it is an alarming state of affairs.
It’s the Republican Party’s “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” mentality on steroids. So it’s no
wonder wingnut radio candidates like Ron Paul and Ken Buck are running into walls when they have to
explain the Tea Party’s foundational tenets, especially when real life events are involved.
Ken “vote for me because I don’t wear high heels” Buck’s Tea Party mantra has now exploded in
Colorado, because it goes so far as to blame a rape victim for her attack. It’s causing him further troubles,
with women’s groups already having issues with Buck who’s proven he’s a misogynist pig. Part of a
transcript is below, which is going public in a very big way:
(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on
his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment…
that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over
to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no… ?
(147) V: So you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent, and you’re
telling me that because of me calling him and because of previous sexual relations and because I invited
him up and told him how to get in, that invited him up for sex…
(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have
looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.
V: Even though, he also stated that I told him no.
“Small government” sounds great in theory, especially considering the very real financial crisis we’re
facing, which no Democrat disputes. But when Gov. Chris Christi starts scuttling infrastructure projects
that create jobs because he doesn’t understand the purpose of basic economic recovery programs, or
Tea Party candidates like Ron Paul or his son Rand start opining about Medicare recipients being “self-
reliant,” or deductibles being raised, people should wake up and take a look at the consequences of
installing Tea Party candidates who don’t know what they’re doing.
The Tea Party plan for America is just now getting drawn out and it’s not going to be good for anyone.
It’s a further illustration of why Obama and Democrats getting sidetracked with the foreign money
“stealing” elections meme was so ludicrous.
Lawrence O’Donnell did more to advance the Democratic ball last night, as did Rachel Maddow with Ron
Paul, than Tim Kaine, Barack Obama and the DNC have combined. The argument against the Tea Party
platform is not that hard to make at a time of maximum populism interest. It’s just many of the current
Dems can’t sell it. It’s also the reason Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are more effective this midterm than
anyone else, especially Pres. Obama.
This post has been updated
DELAWARE LIBERAL: Tuesday Open Thread
By Unstable Isotope
October 12th, 2010

Welcome to your Tuesday open thread. Yes, it’s that time of day again. I’m sure you’ve got something
you’re just burning to share, so here’s your chance.
We haven’t talked much about Ken Buck, the teabagging Senate candidate from Colorado. He’s a terrible
person. A new story came out about how Buck refused to prosecute a rape when he was a District
Attorney.
The alleged rape victim is back and determined to be heard. She told her story to the Colorado
Independent and provided the tape of their meeting (click here for a pdf of the transcript), in which Buck
appears to all but blame her for the rape and tells her that her case would never fly with a Weld County
jury.
…
This victim, though, has worked as a rape victims’ advocate, and she refused to let the matter
drop. When her meeting with Buck got her nowhere, she organized a protest rally at the DA’s office. She
spoke with the media. Buck was forced to respond.
He said the facts in the case didn’t warrant prosecution. “A jury could very well conclude that this
is a case of buyer’s remorse,” he told the Greeley Tribune in March 2006. He went on to publicly call the
facts in the case “pitiful.”
If he had handled it with a little more sensitivity, the victim, who does not want her name used,
says it is possible she may have accepted the decision and moved on. But Buck’s words — as much as
his refusal to prosecute — still burn in her ears.
“That comment made me feel horrible,” she told the Colorado Independent last week. “The
offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he (Buck) not attacked me, I might
have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.
It wasn’t just his public remarks that infuriated the woman. In the private meeting, which she
recorded, he told her, “It appears to me … that you invited him over to have sex with him.”
Gender gap? What gender gap? One clear sign of a misogynist – they focus on the actions of the victim
rather than those of the perpetrator.
Some Republicans dip their toes in the water in criticizing fellow Republicans. The Republican they’re
criticizing is washed-up former Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Longtime observers say the two sides of Gingrich’s persona are in tension on a good day and in
outright conflict on a bad. The recent comments linking Obama to colonial Africa and Democrats to food
stamps sounded not simply anachronistic — the obsessions of an earlier generation — but also freighted
with racial innuendo.
“He knows how to appeal to and arouse the conservative coalition,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-
Okla.). “But he also has a tendency to go one stop further than he should.”
As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) put it of the Gingrich approach: “The good news is it gets
people to listen to you, but the bad news is your negatives go up.”
Wouldn’t you know, Newt is Reagan, at least according to Newt’s friends. Plus, they found another
Republican to criticize him, his almost-certain rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Mitt Romney.
“Two of the most important commodities in a candidate running for president are focus and
discipline — and he’s got neither,” said an adviser to Mitt Romney of Gingrich. “He could be a great help
[to the party] if he’d so choose, if he’d only help with messaging and ideas and be less of a provocateur.
But that’s not what he wants to do.”
Gingrich’s longtime spokesman, Rick Tyler, offered a robust defense of his boss’s rhetoric and
said leaders who speak bold truths often cause more timid listeners to recoil.
 “They are the same people who were upset when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the
‘Evil Empire,’” he said, adding that FDR, too, “said some pretty provocative things in World War II.”
How reasonable and bi-partisan-y of them. When they start criticizing Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh and
the teabaggers in public maybe I’ll believe they believe in something other than their own careers.

SOONERBLUE2.COM: Mirror, mirror on the wall

by soonerblue2
October 12, 2010

.. who’s the craziest one of all?

Well dang, all of a sudden 2010 became the Year of the Crazy .. with Tea Party crazies every “witch” way
you look.
We have Christine O’Donnell, US Senate candidate (DEL), an anti-masturbationist who has to tell her
constituency that she’s not a witch, who thinks there are mice with human brains.
We have Carl Paladino, NY candidate for governor, who threatens reporters with bodily harm, declared
his dog Duke his chief of staff, and is now trashing gays .. he thinks they brainwash children and don’t
deserve equal rights.
We have Rich Iott, a House candidate from Ohio, who likes to play Nazi .. dresses up in a German Nazi
Waffen SS uniform for World War II re-enactments.
We have Rand Paul, US Senate candidate (KY) who’s says he’s not a racist, but wants to repeal the Civil
Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 14th Amendment.
We have Joe Miller, US Senate candidate (AK), who wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare, and
Unemployment Insurance .. but has taken advantage of every government handout he or his wife can get
their hands on.
We have Ken Buck, Colorado US Senate candidate, who would like to ban birth control, firmly opposes
abortion rights and would force rape victims and 14-year-old incest survivors to give birth to their rapists’
babies.
We have Meg Whitman, California candidate for governor, a billionaire who wants to get tough on
employers of illegal aliens, but employs her own illegal aliens.
We have Carly Fiorina, US Senate candidate (CA), a failed CEO who touts her “executive experience”,
but ran HP into the ground .. who shipped 30,000 jobs overseas. Jokes are going around that it’s China
funneling money through the US Chamber of Commerce so that Fiorina can create 30,000 more jobs in
China.
We have Sharron Angle, Nevada US Senate candidate, with her “Second Amendment remedies” .. which
means? .. draw yer pistol and shoot whoever goes agin you?
We have Linda McMahon, Connecticut US Senate candidate and wrestling mogul gone wild (she once
physically attacked a scantily clad lady who she thought was her husband’s mistress) who thinks we
should cut the minimum wage.
Okay, my fingers are tired of typing .. but there are many more .. I didn’t even get to the Chicken Lady …
Thing is, there are plenty of disgruntled voters who might not investigate these candidates enough, and
give them some serious seats in state and federal government.
So .. if the worst happens and these nutcases take over in November, and the US is reduced to third
world status — and it will be — let’s try to look at it from a broader perspective.
Yes, we’ll have hit rock bottom .. the political pendulum will have swung all the way to the right and will
start to slowly swing back to the left. It happens all the time.
Yes, people will suffer, but we’re a strong nation and we’ll have an opportunity to rebuild. Sometimes you
need a crisis in order to overcome a virulent infection, and the crazy rightwing Taliban is as virulent as it
comes.
Once the economy gets back on track — and it will — once we stop the bleeding of our hard earned
dollars into two useless wars, the Tea Party distraction will be phased out of the mainstream Republican
Party. The GOP moderates will refuse to be bullied around any longer by the Palins, Angles, Pauls,
Palladinos, McMahons, Bucks, O’Donnells and Millers of this world.
They’ll all be just an interesting blip in America’s history.