Why isn’t Buck apologizing for his “buyer’s remorse” comment?

If you’ve been reading the news coverage of U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck’s decision not to prosecute a man who admitted raping a 21-year-old University of Northern Colorado student in 2005, you know there’s a major omission: Ken Buck himself.

He’s not quoted in stories in The Denver Post, Associated Press, Politico, Roll Call, Politics Daily, ABC’s The Note, or the Colorado Independent, which was the first news outlet to obtain a  audio-taped discussion among Buck, the alleged rape victim, and two others, and to interview her directly.

Buck is apparently not talking to the media about the case, leaving reporters to chat with his spokesman.

Except, that is, for a reporter at the Greeley Tribune.

Buck talked directly to the Tribune’s Nate Miller, who wrote an excellent article covering different aspects of this complicated story.

The Tribune reports, unlike The Post and the Associated Press, among others, the key fact that the perpetrator “told police she had told him no, but he thought she invited him to Greeley because she wanted to sleep with him.” (The Independent provided a transcript of this admission, as part of its in-depth coverage.)

The Tribune gives Buck ample inches to defend his decision not to prosecute, allowing him to point out that he had numerous deputies review the case, as well as the Boulder District attorney.

The Tribune also asked Buck about his statement to the Tribune in 2006 that a jury might think this was a case of “buyer’s remorse.”

At the time, a Tribune editorial criticized Buck for using the phrase. A Tribune editorial stated:

“Buck told the woman he could not press charges against her attacker, despite the man’s admission to police that she said no. Buck said he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases.

…A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse,’ Buck said.

While we support his legal reasoning, we believe Buck could have, should have been more sensitive in his choice of words, regardless of what he may have thought a jury or defense lawyer would conclude.

He added, …I don’t want victims to be deterred from the pitiful facts in this case from coming forward.’

We, too, hope other victims won’t be discouraged by this case. Again, though, Buck’s selection of words could have been more appropriate. Calling the facts of the case …pitiful’ could be construed by other victims as discouraging.”

Yesterday Buck told the Tribune that the phrase “buyer’s remorse” was taken out of context. The Tribune reported:

“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.”

But either way, why infer publicly that the victim might have “buyer’s remorse,” either for the sexual act or for the relationship? Why use such a condescending phrase?

That’s the kind of question reporters should be asking Buck now, because it gets to the heart of the accusation that Buck isn’t sensitive to women, forcing them to birth babies resulting from rape, for example.

He’s not apologetic about using the phrase “buyer’s remorse,” which we all can agree is a loaded term. Instead, he’s defensive. Why?

Which leads to an error I spotted in the Tribune article.

The Tribune reported that Buck apologized for joking that women should vote for him because “I do not wear high heels.”

In fact, Buck was defensive, not apologetic, about his joke during the GOP primary.

The Associated Press reported that he defended the joke, conceding that it “wasn’t very funny” and it was not meant to be offensive. But he was unapologetic.

I cannot find a record of Buck actually apologizing for the high heels remark. Please let me know if you find this.

In any case, now he’s defending his “buyer’s remorse” comment as well.

Reporters should ask, why doesn’t he think this merits an apology, along with other comments he made about the case, including his statement in 2006 that the facts in the case were “pitiful,” which would presumably include the fact that the man admitted having sex with the woman even though she said no.

One Response to “Why isn’t Buck apologizing for his “buyer’s remorse” comment?”

  1. John H Kennedy Says:

    According to 9 News Denver, Michael Bennet is Offended” Outsiders try to Steal the Election but IGNORES Fact OBAMA STOLE PRIMARY FOR HIM.

    Michael Bennet said “What’s most offensive to me about it is that there has been millions and
    millions of dollars poured into Colorado trying to steal this election from Colorado’s voters and that’s just wrong.”
    The segment is 3/4th of the way through-until the end.

    What a hypocrite! He didn’t seem to care when Obama caused $ 6,000,000 to flow into his campaign coffers JUST IN THE PRIMARY.
    And then in this debate He Sells Out Colorado Union Workers by Refusing To Support CARD CHECK.

    Gop Validates Progressive Critique in Powerful New Ad Against Michael Bennet-David Sirota

    and read last
    How Obama, the DNC, DSCC and Organizing for America Sandbagged the Colorado Senate Primary-Michelle Swenson


    In response to those that say our Colorado Democratic Primary was not stolen, we offer the following evidence:

    Gov. Ritter appointed Bennet even though none of the Democratic rank and file recommendation/emails that Ritter asked for mentioned Bennet “even once”.

    Prior to our primary vote:
    Obama endorsed Bennet prior to our Caucus, County Assemblies or Primary vote.
    Obama directly raised Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars for Bennet in Denver.
    Obama Personally Campaigned for Bennet in Colorado and elsewhere.
    Obama caused 460,000 Robo-Calls to be placed to CO Dems with his endorsement.
    Obama Joined a 20,000+ telephone conference call to CO Dems with his endorsement.
    Obama caused thousands of Telemarketing Calls to be made to CO Dems From Washington DC, just prior to the Primary on Aug. 10.

    Our State Democratic Party leaders allowed OFA to officially organize for Bennet and do it out of the State Democratic Party offices.

    The DNC and DSCC gave all their Colorado Senate race money to Bennet, thus financially handicapping Romanoff and removing him from prime individual donor lists and preferential media treatment,

    A huge “Breach Of Trust” With Rank & File Colorado Dems.”

    “The Greatest Good that can be achieved from the Colorado Senate race is Getting Back Our Honest Democratic Senate Primary.

    To make that happen Romanoff supporters will need to send a very powerful message to Obama and Corrupt State and national Democratic Party officials

    which you can do by WRITING-IN “Romanoff”

    Or Just Leaving the Space next to Bennet’s name “BLANK”


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.