America is Calling: Support Ken Buck

ProgressNowColorado.com has Ken Buck in their crosshairs.  The Independent, the left wing newspaper out of Colorado Springs is ridiculing Rasmussen so readers will discredit his polling data. Ken Buck's victory on Tuesday night set off a firestorm that quickly spread beyond Colorado.  As typically occurs, once election results are known, the losing camp sulks off to lick their wounds and pout for a bit.  Buck people would have done the same had Norton won.  It's normal and allowed and with the amount of passion and intensity that went into these campaigns, anything less that heartbreak would be abnormal.

It's Friday now and the sun has continued to rise each morning since Ken Buck was handed the banner of victory.  While Norton supporters have sulked, the progressive Democrats have been busy concocting a game plan to defeat Ken Buck.  Can Ken win in November?  Of course, he can.  He defied all odds by winning the primary.  He habitually ran behind in polling, fundraising, name recognition and high-profile endorsements.  The results should have been different on Tuesday night if all the typical political markers had held strong.

The enormously powerful and well-funded 527, "Grow Our Party" hand-picked Mrs. Norton and funneled millions into Colorado in the way of TV ads and mailers.  Some of their effort worked.  There were voters that changed their mind from Ken to Jane based on the ad campaign from "G.O.P."   It's time for G.O.P. to realize their efforts worked to some degree, so this is no time to pull out of Colorado. They need to mount an attack against the forces that would defeat Ken Buck.

Ken Buck has what it takes to defeat Michael Bennet.  He will be excellent in debates and he does not waiver in his positions.  He is extremely personable and likable and time and again, people he met on the stump would comment that if people actually heard him in person, shook his hand and looked him in the eye, they couldn't help but see his sincerity, integrity and deep commitment to fight for his country.  He has a very appealing demeanor; there is nothing elite or pretentious about him which is why he immediately lead the pack among the grassroots voters that are tired and frustrated with establishment Republicans.  Another common thought that echoed throughout the primary campaign was the fact that many Republicans no longer trust their county chairs and people in higher authority in the party.  After all, it was on their watch that the Republicans suffered defeats in '06 and '08.  Why keep following a game plan that is proven to fail?

Jane Norton needs to come out in a bold way and call upon all her supporters to not just stand with Ken Buck with their vote, but to donate.  This race is going to be all about money.  Ken Buck needs a war chest to strike back when lies are told and attacks are levied toward him. 

Our country is calling.  We need to replace Michael Bennet with the people's choice, Ken Buck.  He won.  He can do the job but he needs the assistance of an entire nation that understands how crucial his conservative vote is in the U.S. Senate. 

Go to www.buckforcolorado.com to donate, volunteer and get involved.  There will be another election in 6 years.  If you aren't happy with Ken Buck at that point, you have another shot at putting someone in Washington that you'd prefer.  But for now, Ken Buck is our candidate.  We can support him 100% and do our best to turn the tide of this Administration, or we can sit it out because we didn't get the candidate we wanted.  If you choose the latter, you've already cast a vote for Michael Bennet and more of Obama's progressive agenda.

I'm for the ticket. Aren't you?

"For Governor of Colorado in these tough times, Dan Maes the Tea Party conservative beats John Hickenlooper the Park Hill liberal hands down. I'm for Dan as every Republican should be." That's the formal statement I have just provided the Maes campaign to use as they see fit. My favorable and unfavorable words about Dan in recent weeks are all on record at this blog for anybody to sort out as desired.

Bottom line, the GOP nominating process has twice endorsed this indomitable Man from Middle America, and my regard for his unlikely achievement, along with my bone-deep party loyalty, prompts me to add my support to that of a couple hundred thousand fellow Coloradans who supported him Tuesday.

In coming aboard with Maes, I'm affirming my belief that he would be a better chief executive for our state, all things considered, than either Hickenlooper or Tancredo -- and my belief that a fractured, embittered Republican Party in Colorado must be avoided at all costs.

It's better avoided if we stand with Dan, even in what may well be a losing cause, than if we bolt and go with Tom in what will surely be his losing cause. These are the times that try men's souls. How will history judge us?

Hiroshima, absent history

August 6^th marked the 65^th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  For the first time since the end of World War II, an American representative attended the official commemoration ceremony of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.  President Obama sent U.S. Ambassador John Roos to “express respect for all the victims of World War II” – a benign sounding olive branch that was designed to convey empathy to the Japanese.  This is consistent with Obama’s desire to “reset” American diplomacy by showing the world that America is not the global bully of the past. Unfortunately, compassion in the absence of context can be meaningful -- in unintended ways.   Sending the U.S. Ambassador to the Hiroshima ceremony as an act of “respect” provides fuel to the revisionist case that the U.S. was wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Japan on August 6, 1945, and plays into the hands of those who now increasingly believe that America was the aggressor in the Pacific War.  Even actor Tom Hanks – the Executive Producer of the HBO mini-series “The Pacific”, referred in a recent interview to the war against Japan as one of “racism and terror” on both sides, and that the U.S. wanted to annihilate the Japanese simply because “they were different”.

Hanks comments essentially reflect what is fast becoming a lost history among newer generations – particularly as taught by left-wing academics and reported by the left-leaning media.   The reality is that the Japanese war machine was ferocious, fanatical and fought to the death in every major naval and land engagement of the Pacific war.  At the battle for Okinawa in 1945 – the last major land battle of the war when the Japanese empire knew that defeat was inevitable – some 12,000 American soldiers and marines were killed in brutal cave-to-cave fighting that left over 100,000 Japanese soldiers dead.  Only 7,000 soldiers surrendered to U.S. forces.   At sea in Iron Bottom Sound, Okinawa saw the deaths of almost 5,000 navy personnel and the sinking of more than 30 American ships – many at the hands of over 1,500 Japanese suicide “Kamikaze” attacks.  Even more disturbing, the Japanese military actively encouraged the Okinawa civilian population to commit mass suicide rather than be captured by U.S. forces.  Over 100,000 Okinawan civilians are believed to have died during the two month battle.

It was this experience that colored the thinking of President Truman and the American military as they approached the events of August 1945.  The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki avoided tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties that were virtually certain in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The presence of Ambassador Roos at Hiroshima neglects a very important context which the left tends to routinely ignore: Japan was an expansionist imperial power that brutally invaded China and South Asia and attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor without provocation.  By offering respect for “all victims”, Roos gives rise to a moral equivalency of responsibility which only further removes history from the discussion, and will in time lead to more strident requests for a formal U.S. apology – something this administration may be quite predisposed to do.

This anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing was a missed opportunity for one of Barack Obama’s “teachable moments”; but rather than being something for America to apologize for, it should provide the basis for an honest discussion of Japan’s actions during the Second World War.  Doing so would put the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan in its proper light: as a wise and prudent choice that spared innocent lives on both sides.

Scotch verdict on McInnis-Maes

What is called in the law a Scotch verdict, an agnostic shrug of "not proved," is my sad and reluctant conclusion about next week's Republican primary for Governor of Colorado. At present I cannot support either of the two candidates.

I was intrigued with the businessman-outsider persona of dark horse Dan Maes, and went so far as to float the case for him in my Denver Post column last Sunday, posted below left as "Maes and the Medicine." But as the evidence mounts, I deem the case very insufficient.

Dan Maes is not ready for prime time and seemingly not who he has claimed to be.

Scott McInnis has seen too much prime time, and Colorado is not ready for who we know him to be.

Which is regrettable for two public-spirited Coloradans, fundamentally decent men with devoted families -- and even more regrettable for our state, which so urgently needs the limited-government leadership a qualified Republican could provide right now.

Where does this leave us on the morning of August 11 when one of these two is officially the GOP nominee? Attractive and viable options are slim to none.

A ticket-replacement maneuver is imaginable but unlikely. A plurality victory for Constitution candidate Tom Tancredo is also unlikely; Tom is my friend but won't get my vote.

Are we looking at a handshake from outgoing Gov. Bill Ritter to incoming Gov. John Hickenlooper next January, Democrats retaining power against all odds after botching things so badly the past four years? What a pity if it comes to that.

Ginger Rogers Wouldn't Approve of Such Tactics

I am a supporter of Ken Buck in the U.S. Senate race. My vote for him did not come automatically or without careful study and consideration. My first instinct several months ago was to support Jane Norton. At the time, I viewed Jane as an attractive candidate, coming onto the national scene on the coat tails of Sarah Palin. I read her as a tough, gritty conservative woman. I assumed she was a woman of character, ethics, old-west integrity and a person whose handshake equals an absolute bond of truth and sincerity. I had not heard much of anything about Ken Buck, but before I signed up as a volunteer for Jane, I felt compelled to make sure I was making the right decision. I started doing some homework on Ken Buck. When he was somewhat close to where I live, I made an effort to go and listen to him. Did the same with Mrs. Norton, to be fair, and it wasnt long before I started to doubt my friends in the GOP that were coaxing me to stand with Jane. Trust them, they said, we know which candidate can win.

I had a complete change of heart one Saturday morning in late winter when I heard a woman speak at a GOP monthly meeting. It was planned as a U.S. Senate candidate forum but neither Norton nor Buck could attend.  At that time, the field was crowded with other candidates. The room was overwhelmingly full of Norton enthusiasts, including many elected officials, both local and state-wide. Well respected persons in government positions took to the microphone to endorse Jane Norton. There was one woman that had come to speak on behalf of Ken Buck. I was absolutely struck by her passion in talking to the group. She was a woman I definitely could identify with--middle class, about my age, not comfortable in such situations, no rehearsed talking points and coached public speaking--but full of a fire that I believed was the true heart and soul of the Voice of the People Movement.  Having attended many tea parties and grassroots meetings hosted by a myriad of organizations, I knew a good, solid from-the-heart appeal when I heard one, and I heard one that morning. When the meeting adjourned, I was approached by the purple t-shirts of the Norton camp, asking me to fill donation envelopes, sign up to walk precincts and just to "Stand with Jane", afterall, I was a woman--all Republican women in Colorado were automatically expected to march in lockstep. By the time I made it to my car, I was no longer a blind follower of my county GOP's pick, and I was ready to learn more about Ken Buck, the DA from Weld, County.

In May, I was one of the very fortunate folks in Colorado to be able to attend and cast votes at the GOP State Caucuses. By that point, I was fully convinced I'd vote for Ken Buck, even though I had cast a straw poll vote for Norton back in March at my neighborhood caucus.

It's been a journey of enlightenment.  That cold night in March at my local elementary school and then the high energy experience in Loveland at the State Caucuses both seem so long ago. As the heat of mid-summer and evening storms bear down on us in these final days before the Primary, I've held out hope this race would remain civil and dignified. America has had enough of lies and platitudes and disingenuous politicians. I felt all year we could do better.

I attended a very informative lecture last evening given by KUSA's Adam Schrage, co-author of "The Blueprint..." Locally, we'd been encouraged by conservative radio to hear this young man speak and learn from his research and published findings. He was, indeed, an impressive speaker and presenter. I knew in advance the actual details of how Progressives organized and snatched Colorado from the GOP. I'd read the book but hadn't heard Mr. Schrage's presentation. The one point he made that I took to heart and took home was the reality that we will never, ever have one candidate that totally and completely meets all our requirements. No one, other than ourselves, lines up exactly with all of our ideals and positions on different issues. While he was party-neutral in his discussion, he was clear that it is essential to put aside petty issues once a primary is over and stand firmly with the candidate of your party---provided you want your party to win.

I knew as I left that he was right and I was committed that come Wednesday, August 11, I was going to be 4-square behind the electorate's choice for U.S. Senate and Colorado Governor. I kept reminding myself that we must win. We must put a Republican in those seats, even though the persons filling them may not be as conservative as I or may differ on an issue or two.

I've been disappointed by the childish attacks Jane Norton has levied against Ken Buck. I expected more from her.  The behavior definitely does not line up with my ideals of ethics and sense of decency that help define my political agenda. I'm old-fashioned because I believe persons in positions of authority deserve our respect and in turn, they need to live their lives and model behavior that compells the rest of us to try and elevate our own behavior and conduct in society.  It is very discouraging to watch a political campaign use tactics and words that I wouldn't allow my family to use in our home. 

Today, I received a glossy, high-dollar campaign flyer in the mail and while I understand a candidate has no real control over campaign slurs put out by independent groups, I know that the slur presented in this flyer is something Jane herself has hammered on for over a week.

"Grow Our Party", the powerful 527 group headed up by Bill Bloomfield, a California developer, was officially organized in March, 2010, according to an article written March 25, '10, by ABC News political correspondent, Matthew Mosk. (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10198868 The irony is unavoidable because Mrs. Norton has avoided her connections to Sen. John McCain for months and has tried unsucessfully to garner the support of Colorado's grassroots voters. Grow Our Party is top heavy with operatives from McCain's '08 run and now Sen. McCain is coming to Colorado to stump for Jane.  Grow Our Party hand-picks candidates and only seeks elitism in terms of the ad agencies, polling groups and other entities to associate with.  They know what's best for the Republican Party and someone like me is expected to follow their lead without question.  That's hard to do since I've been very vocal about the sorry effects Insider Politics have had on our country, especially in recent years. 

Apparently, when it was politically expedient to deny connection to John McCain other than being friends, Mrs. Norton did so, but now she needs his endorsement and the influx of money from his pals at Grow Our Party, who solicits and often collects donations in the $500,000 range. That's quite a step up for the hometown girl from Grand Junction, educated at CSU (her claim to grassroots fame).

I know Ken Buck and other candidates I'm supporting this cycle also have external special interest groups running ads, as well. But Mrs. Norton has been over the top. I've heard her at several debates. I've heard her repeatedly dodge questions during radio interviews and I've seen her lose her cool when questioned or challenged. She cannot be budged from her memorized scripts. Here's the thing that has literally broken my heart about this particular race:

"Grow Our Party" sent out this fancy flyer today which has a '50's era woman on the cover saying, "Whoa! Aren't we past this?" Inside, the memory of Ginger Rogers is invoked with the statement, "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels."  I've heard that comment alot and I've always wondered what Ms. Rogers would say about it.  She made a career out of dancing with Fred Astaire and she valued his friendship and the fact that worked so well together.  She could have danced entirely alone and had as much fame and fortune, but she knew the two of them together were even better.  The flyer is cutsy and clearly aimed at undecided women voters, but for me, it had the opposite effect. 

Anyone with any political knowledge of this race knows the reference being made. Jane Norton made some off-handed comment about her high heels, and later Ken Buck made a comment, also off-handed and done with humor. It's been a gold mine for the Norton camp, who failed to encourage "Grow Our Party" to include in this flyer the fact that a woman in Norton's camp recently went on record as saying something to the tune of, "It's time to sex up this campaign." They also fail to mention that the upper tier of Buck's campaign staff is all women. This smear campaign ad goes on to state, ...Ken Buck says the only reason to vote for him is because he doesn't wear high heels. They complete the lie by noting that his "disdain for women is obvious."

Jane Norton's husband hired Ken Buck many years ago. Did she question h is 'disdain' for women back then?   Does Jane Norton honestly think he disdains women when she sees the devotion, love and commitment he receives from his wife and daughter and that he clearly returns to them? According to Jane Norton and the big-money team in Washington, D.C., that has hand-picked her for the Senate, Ken Buck is not fit for about anything, yet as a concerned citizen of Colorado, I had not previously heard her complaints and concerns about him in his public service life. 

As Sean Hannity says, it's the silly season right now in politics. Our country faces so many horrific challenges. We have problems that I never expected to see within the borders of this country in my lifetime. Jane Norton and her camp have resorted to petty politics as usual. Win at any cost. Defame and demoralize a good man and his family. Whatever it takes. She is a woman with a vision of a long career in politics. She is propped up now by the power players in D.C., even though she has repeatedly denied associations of that sort all along.  Her agenda is clear. Voters are also clear in what we want and what we will and will not accept anymore; our kids are watching all of this and the bar should have been set higher.  This is not behavior moms of most young girls would endorse and hold out as an example for their child to follow.

The results will be in come Tuesday night. Colorado will have spoken and we'll know which candidates to unite behind and which to reject. In walking my precinct this evening, I visited with several Republican neighbors that also received that same flyer. They find it replusive, immature and one went so far as to say it's downright un-American. Mud-slinging for the sake of one's own political advantage doesn't rate too high these days. Our opponent is Barack Obama and his Congress.  Folks are so tired of it and the nasty ads that a debate in Pueblo has been cancelled because citizens simply don't want to sit through it anymore.

I have asked repeatedly to be taken off of Jane Norton's phone, email and mailing lists. I wish the cost of that flyer that came today had been donated to a disabled vet instead.  If I'd gotten a small notice that said money that might have been used to attack Ken Buck had instead been donated to a Veteran's Home, my opinion of Jane Norton would have really improved--alot.  Up until today, I was sure that if Jane Norton was the candidate on the November ballot, I'd put aside my feelings and vote for her. The young man giving the lecture last night also encouraged it: vote for the party candidate because you never get everything you want anyway.

After getting the mail today; however, I have new questions. What about personal integrity? What about decency and Christian charity?  What about taking responsibility for your behavior and keeping in mind you have an obligation to set a good example for kids and people we'd love to coax into the Republican Party?  What about expecting a fellow Colorado woman to be above petty, sophormoric, unbecoming behavior? How does a person reconcile your vote when one candidate resorts to behavior you could not accept in your family, church or place of employment?

Ken Buck's chances are now in the hands of the Lord. Only He knows whom He will bless with a win on Tuesday and whom He has deemed as the standard-bearer for us in November. I can overlook a few policy differences. I'm not so sure I can forgive an utter betrayal of common decency and treating one's fellow man with respect and dignity.