Posted by | October 26, 2010 15:00 | Filed under: Top Stories

By Yashwanth Manjunath

This past July, when Ken Buck was battling it out with Jane Norton for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Colorado he told voters to support him because he “does not wear high heels.” At best Buck’s comments can be interpreted as meaning people should vote for him because he isn’t a cross dresser, but given that his opponent was a woman I think we know what he was implying. Buck might as well have been saying “vote for me because Jane Norton should go back to the kitchen.”

Of course, one random sexist comment during a Republican primary does not mean that Ken Buck is a woman-hater. No, it is what Ken Buck did five years ago as District Attorney in Weld County that shows why he is unfit to represent the men and women of Colorado in the Senate.

Five years ago Ken Buck failed to prosecute an alleged rape case because he felt that the woman was simply suffering from “buyer’s remorse“. Moving past how detestable that comment is, the facts disagree with Buck’s erroneous assumptions. In a taped phone call, the “alleged rapist” confessed to police, and to the victim, that what he did was rape.

“This is the type of evidence [prosecutors] dream of,” says Laurie Levenson, an expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “If you’re a defense lawyer, and your client says she said no and was resisting, usually you’re talking plea deal at that point. It doesn’t necessarily guarantee a slam dunk, but most [district attorneys] would love to have statements like this as a starting point in their prosecution. You almost always get the opposite.”

Two taped confessions, one with the police, and one with the victim, would be enough for most prosecutors to go forward with a rape case, but not Ken Buck! So what exactly did the suspect say to the victim during the taped conversation/confession anyway?

Victim: “You do realize that … it’s rape.”

Suspect: “Yeah, I do.”

Victim: “Like in a number of different ways, because I didn’t want to do it and because I was intoxicated and because I was afraid.”

Suspect: “Yes I do. I know.”

If Ken Buck is so incompetent as a district attorney that he cannot convict a rapist with this kind of evidence, why on earth should voters believe he would be an effective Senator?

Ken Buck takes the extreme pro-life position on abortion, meaning that he is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest. So in Ken Buck’s America, if the rapist who Buck refused to prosecute had gotten his victim pregnant, he would get away with nothing and the victim would be forced to have her rapist’s baby. Ken Buck cannot be allowed into the United States Senate. The people of Colorado do not deserve a senator who would protect a rapist before he would protect a woman.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 Liberaland