Negative Campaign Ads Move Into Overdrive

I was worried that when the Dems got around to making this a campaign issue, they would portray Ken Buck as "soft on crime" or too cozy with defense lawyers, neither of which is remotely true. Happily, the ad primarily focuses on the ethical implications of Buck's actions. I wrote up the whole story here. [More..]

Previously, Buck was an AUSA who left after a reprimand by the U.S. Attorney for criticizing a federal gun prosecution and sharing information with a defense lawyer. The information torpedoed the case (which, by the way, deserved to be torpedoed.) But, before people go around saying Buck is friendly to defense lawyers, think again: The defense attorney he shared the info with was a friend who was a former AUSA in the office from 1987 to 1994. The gun case was referred to the U.S. attorney's office in 1998, when Buck was chief of general crimes. A Republican state legislator asked Buck for recommendations for defense lawyers, and Buck suggested the former AUSA for representation.

In other words, Buck shared the info because the lawyer was a friend and former crony. Anyone who thinks he has defense-oriented leanings is way off base.

Ken Buck is a bad choice on abortion/choice, social security, immigration and crime.

The ad, by the way, was not put out by Michael Bennet or his campaign, but the Public Campaign Action Fund which says on its You Tube channel:

Public Campaign Action Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving America's campaign finance laws. We help enact, defend, and promote Clean Elections-style public financing in states around the country like Arizona and Maine, and advocate for similar legislation for all federal elections.

The Denver Post says we can expect the ad to run often.

Campaign Money Watch doled out $750,000 to run the ad all over the Denver television market — this is one of the biggest buys for a single television ad in the general election campaign so far.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Achievements! Congress Passes Bill To Make Foreclosures Easier >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Negative? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:46:10 PM EST
    I guess that depends on your POV.  To me, Buck is not only a bad choice on so many issues, but another in a long line of say anything to get elected, self-serving, self-involved politician.  

    I wish someone would look into the groups that are running attack ads on his behalf--especially the questions surrounding the US Chamber of Commerce and their use of foreign funds to finance their ads.  

    Heck, I'd be happy if someone in the local media would actually pin him down and get a straight answer out of him as to where he really stands on the issues.  There's a reason the word "Buckpeddle" has been coined.

    Anyway, it's sweeps in the Denver market, so you can expect to see a lot of "negative" ads.  I hear Buck is going to get hit on his stance on Veteran's care next.  A lot of the Vets I know are pretty worked-up about that--and with good reason.  

    Follow-up on C of C (none / 0) (#2)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:49:03 PM EST
    The matter of the Chamber's use of foreign funds should be emphasized again and then again. In addition to whatever legal questions might be swirling around in there, the very image of the virulent Chamber utilizing such foreign funds would have a very strong effect in the traditionally independent, proud "real western"  areas in Colorado (the very people that might have been attracted to the Buck image of western American independence and all that.) The Bennet people should hit that hard.

    I think... (none / 0) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:30:55 AM EST
    ...most Coloradans are somewhat offended by these modern day carpetbaggers coming in and trying to buy an election.  I know I sure am.  This is my home, I have to live here and the people who represent me should not be decided by outsiders who have no interest in what happens here aside from furthering their own interests.

    Not only the Senate race, but our all too easy to game initiative process as well.  

    Axelrod was on Letterman last night and mentioned the foreign money being poured in to many races around the country, so they're aware of it--it remains to be seen how hard they'll hit back.  


    I've seen it six times tonight (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:54:00 AM EST
    on several stations. It's only 30 seconds but it packs a punch. And yes, I'd say calling your opponennt unethical is a negative ad. Of course, it's not Bennet's ad but the outside group, and Buck's ads are worse and distort Bennet's records. This one happens to to be pretty factually accurate from what I can tell.

    Well... (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    ...it is factual, IMO and I don't equate factual with being negative.  If the shoe fits...

    I waiting for the Bennet camp to hit back on the DPS funding lies.  They should have a response ready to go given that Romanoff brought it up during the primaries.