This political season we were all inundated with political ads designed to give uninformed, and ignorant voters something to latch on to.
This happened on both sides, and it occurs for a simple reason: if one side does it, the other side simply has to as well. It’s a sad but true reality. The massive failure of 60, 61, and 101 show what happens when one side doesn’t even defend their position against an onslaught of propaganda from the opposition.

One item that kept nagging at me though, was this “buyer’s remorse” comment from Ken Buck. I think this one single ad could’ve been responsible for him losing the election, as it alienated many women voters, and falsely created a premise that any reasonable person would agree with, namely that his statement was grossly uncalled for.

The problem is, the sound bite doesn’t contain the whole story. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find the real story anywhere online, as mostly what you’ll find are infuriated folks calling for the demise of Buck based on this remark, and blatantly biased articles from the Denver Post, Politico, Huffpo, and the like (yes, when I say “the like” I mean exactly what you think I mean).

So what’s the truth then?
Well, as I find anytime I take the time to research an issue, there are reasonable stances on both sides. The words quoted were in fact said, and as such weren’t incredibly sensitive. That being said, the context in which they were said makes the quote not as horrible as it seems sitting there on its own.

To start, here’s how the case is portrayed by the left: Politico article outlining facts of the case with lots of “he said this, but really *meant* this.”

While the woman did meet with Buck and secretly tape the conversation he had with her, the only facts we get beyond the recording are her assertions that when saying one thing, he meant something else.
An example of this is this quote from the Politico piece:

“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.

He said you were to blame? Really? “You know sweeetheart *wink* you’re really to blame … wearing those short shorts ‘n all.” I mean – was something like that actually said, or do you mean to say that you *felt* as though he was pointing the blame at you? There’s a very important difference between the two, namely that one is inference, and one is fact.

Buck’s choice not to address this issue has hurt his cause, as he has had the chance to make the very reasonable case as to why he refused to take the case.
He did however grant an interview to the Tribune in Greeley.
The Colorado Independent has a great article on how this particular quote of Buck’s was taken out of context. For the record, it’s written by Jason Salzman who is hardly a partisan Republican pulling for the right. In fact, he agrees that Buck’s views on birth control are too extreme (I personally disagree, given what Buck’s actually said, but that’s a separate post), and he typically writes with a fairly left-leaning slant.

I won’t dissect the article and add my own commentary on every sentence – it’s a balanced, fair take on the subject in my opinion, and is reasonably well written. Not to mention, it’s a quick read, so do yourself a favor (even if you think I’m totally crazy at this point) and read it. It may give you a slightly different perspective on this.
Basically it comes down to Buck dismissing the case for valid reasons – the main one being his *job* (yes, he has a boss, and a directive) to take only cases he can win. I would cite his landmark hate-crime conviction involving a transgendered victim which was the first of its kind in the country for any who think he’s devoid of character and compassion.
The “buyer’s remorse” comment was first and foremost made about the jury’s perception of her, it wasn’t directed at her, by him. His comment to her was that he feared the jury would see it as a case of “buyer’s remorse.” He didn’t accuse her of having buyer’s remorse as so many misprints allude. Furthermore, as he himself says:

“I listed five or six reasons why I thought a jury would not convict in this case,” Buck told the Tribune. “She said she was passed out during the sexual act, so I wasn’t referring to whether she had buyer’s remorse for the act that they engaged in, but rather for the prior relationship they had.”

Was it insensitive to make the remarks? It definitely could’ve been worded better, being said in the woman’s presence – but put in context it isn’t nearly as horrible as the media has made it out to be. I’m not apologizing for him either – I’m trying to give a valid, and balanced perspective that seeks to find the truth behind the issue, rather than the highly sensationalized demonizing that both sides seem so keen on these days.

I guess what amazes me about all of this is people’s inability (in general) to seek these answers out on their own.
It’s like anthropogenic climate change science – the perpetrators head out with a specific agenda in mind, and don’t stop until they find corroborating evidence.
It’s inaccurate at best, and at worst, is downright dishonest.