Wow! Chuck Todd Says Grimes 'Disqualified Herself' By Refusing to Say If She Voted for Obama

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[detective]

She is campaigning on how she opposes Obama. Her campaign is phony. She supports Obama but is lying to the electorate.

The fact that she refuses to acknowledge that she worked for and voted for the man she now claims to oppose exposes her as a liar.

The voting booth is private if you keep it private. She made it public with her lies about not supporting Obama.

[Newtoidaho]

She didn’t want to admit that she voted for whoever was running as the Communist Party USA candidate.

[SkyDancer]

You vote in secret. Why should anyone say who they voted for?

[Mygirlsmom]

And I love how she said, “he’s not on the ballot” when BObola just took pains to say how the midterms were all about him just a few days prior.

[anoldafvet]

You obviously don't live in Kentucky. One of her ads criticizes Mitch for "voting himself a pay raise 6 times in 30 years". Another accuses him of "Being absent from his Job" when she hasn't performed her duties as Kentucky Secretary of State since she started running for the senate (But still collects her salary). She also accuses Mitch of "cutting Medicare" (an oldie but a goody) Her last mailer said she was going to increase jobs by raising the minimum wage and increase "job Training for Veterans", while her potential boss hands out pink slips in combat zones.

She is definitely NOT "OK", she is an ignorant, inexperienced Liberal.

[DJ MacWoW]

Don't Wait Until Pigs Fly!
Donate Today

Click The Pic To Donate

[Norm Lenhart]

Yea like this isn’t a controlled demolition.

The dems could easily have knocked off this fraud with an even half assed candidate. So what did they do? They ran a complete idiot and Capt. RINO was STILL struggling. He has actually had to put some effort into this election season.

So just to be sure that Mitch does not do the usual GOP thing and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, she went out there and took one for the team, practically sealing the deal on the election.

[Servant of the Cross]

When a Dem loses Mika, Chuck Todd and MorningJoe ....

[Theophilus]

she is an ignorant, inexperienced Liberal.

As opposed to McConnell who is a diabolical, way-past-due Liberal.

[grania]

but I think I loathe Grimes the least...

She's younger, and if she gets to the US Senate, she'll be there forever. McConell for one more term (if he lasts that long), while seeing if a constitutional conservative emerges is probably better long-term strategy.

[ConservativeDude]

True.

It is exactly like that.

And it is also true that I loathe cancer less than Ebola.....

[jjsheridan5]

She's younger, and if she gets to the US Senate, she'll be there forever ... McConell for one more term ... while seeing if a constitutional conservative emerges is probably better long-term strategy.

Nonsense. Were she to win, she would be the epitome of "vulnerable incumbent", and would lose to any half-way decent candidate. Your "long term strategy" is what has gotten us into this position, where liberalism has no effective opposition, whatsoever.

No wonder conservatism is losing so badly, if so many of us buy into baseless hysteria such as "she'll be there forever."

[grania]

Have you noticed? Until possibly this year, US Senators just don't get voted out of office. Murkowski and Liebermann kept their seats by going third party after losing primaries. You've got the dirty dealing in MS stealing the nomination from a conservative. McCain? He told the right lies and just keeps getting elected. Landrieu and Collins? How on earth do they hang on?

It's very hard to get rid of a US Senator. The bad ones get so much corporate and special interest backing and will tell any lie, that they just keep hanging on. This Grimes looks to be seriously bad news. The kind you never get rid of.

[Political Junkie Too]

If there is one single thing that McConnell does well as Majority Leader, it better be to restore regular order to the Senate, pass REAL budget bills that conservatives can stand behind, and make Obama veto one after another after another.

Then challenge the Democrats to override the vetoes for the sake of the American people.

This should be the Republican Congressional agenda for the next two years in the run up to the 2016 Presidential campaign.

-PJ

[jjsheridan5]

I find it interesting that 3 of the 5 people (4 of 6, if you include the implied Senator of MS) that you use as examples of bad US Senators are Republicans. Yet, you think that it is a good long-term strategy to hold on to the one who is their leader in the Senate, their most ardent advocate, and the one who ensures that any intra-party opposition gets crushed. Curious long-term strategy, indeed.

But on a more general point, you are describing the symptoms of a neutered opposition party, not the causes. These Senators are so difficult to remove because we are in a situation where the nominal home to conservatism is actually conservatism’s most potent enemy. There is no way McConnell’s successor will be anything other than an opponent of conservatism, irrespective of rhetoric and token votes. And were a conservative to find their way to get past the hurdle of nomination, they would quickly find that they face two opponents in the general: the Democrats, obviously, and, sticking a knife in their back, McConnell’s allies.

If we have gotten to the point where we don’t do the right thing because people like Grimes intimidate us, then strategy probably makes little difference, since we have lost already.

[Buckeye McFrog]

she is T-O-A-S-T

Thank you, James O’Keefe!

If only McConnell weren’t going to win I could be happy about this.

[grania]

The problem is with Grimes herself. She has already acknowledged that she's lying to get the coal vote. We're in a tough place, and not every (or even most) horrible Republican US Senators can go. Cochran should go....his primary campaign was beyond disgusting, against a viable conservative challenger. Hopefully, Ernst will pick up a seat, and that should be more conservative firepower and balance Cochran's loss.

But McConnell? Bevin was a lousy candidate, face it. He didn't have a voting track record. He had earlier signed on to something supporting Obamacare. He talked the talk, but was probably a Chamber of Commerce plant. And the appearance at a cock-fighting rally? Really? Since conservatives lost because the candidate was too imperfect, McConnell should be supported. Same thing with Roberts. Wolfe has no voting record, he was unwise enough to put patient xrays online...he lost it on his own, so Roberts should get conservative support.

The ones I see that should not get conservative support are Cochran and (in the future) Murkowski. Flake, McCain, and Ayotte (disgusting campaign liars and backstabbers). But McConnell? No, let him have those six years.

[jjsheridan5]

she is T-O-A-S-T ... If only McConnell weren’t going to win I could be happy about this.

While, selfishly, I enjoy her implosion, I think this is terrible for conservatism, strategically. McConnell is one of the key ring-leaders of the anti-conservative movement within DC. His reelection will set conservatism back considerably over the long run. A textbook Pyrrhic victory.

[jjsheridan5]

But McConnell? Bevin was a lousy candidate, face it. He didn't have a voting track record. He had earlier signed on to something supporting Obamacare. He talked the talk, but was probably a Chamber of Commerce plant. And the appearance at a cock-fighting rally? Really? Since conservatives lost because the candidate was too imperfect, McConnell should be supported. Same thing with Roberts. Wolfe has no voting record, he was unwise enough to put patient xrays online...he lost it on his own, so Roberts should get conservative support.

Why the "But McConnell?" part, when the rest of the paragraph only talks about Bevin, Wolfe, and Roberts. Bevin's weakness as a candidate does not make McConnell any less of an avowed enemy of constitutional conservatism. Nor does Bevin's weakness (or Robert's online use of xrays) make McConnell any less powerful when crushing conservatism.

But McConnell? No, let him have those six years.

Six more years of using his position as the de facto leader of the Republican party to crush any semblance of conservatism in the Republican party? Six more years of withholding support for conservative Republican candidates? Six more years of creating dependency on the Republican brand of crony capitalism? Six more years of stifling any real cohesive opposition to the left? Six more years of preventing a cohesive vision to compete with liberalism? He deserves far more than six years, I am afraid, but not in the Senate, but rather someplace considerably warmer.

[grania]

Which is worse in your mind? Supporting Cochran who stole the primary and insulted all constitutional conservatives along the way or support McConnell who won that primary fairly? I have to make that distinction, or there’d only be about five Republicans left in the US Senate. Any change will be much more gradual than in the HOR or in Governorships.