Posted on 10/10/2014 12:10:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Alison Lundergan Grimes (D), who is trying to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) this fall, appeared before the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board on Thursday to make her pitch for their endorsement. The life-long Democrat, whose father represented Kentucky for the party in the state House and who herself has been on the ballot in the state on the Democratic ticket, was asked a simple question. Did she vote for President Obama in 2008 and 2012?
And she didn't answer. Repeatedly.........
.... there was no reason to do this. Grimes is fairly new on the national scene, but she's not new enough not to know how to answer this fairly simply. "Yes, I voted for him," you say, "but I've been disappointed by a lot of the things he's done, particularly on COAL and JOBS and GUNS" or whatever. It's simple. And then you can say, "but I backed Hillary in the primary" and so on and so on. 2008 was a landmark year, a wave for Democrats, when Obama's approval was sky-high. Of course she voted for him! Dodging the question looks like she's trying to hide her position, which is never the face you want to show -- particularly when conservatives are accusing her of hiding her positions on other things.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I was recently at a debate between Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D NY 18th) and his challenger, former Rep. Nan Hayworth, MD (R, C), and not once during the 30 minute debate did Maloney mention the name “Obama.” Instead, he repeatedly referred to himself as a “Clinton Democrat.” Maloney is a left-wing, environmental and abortion extremist, who is running to the right, even though he has supported Obama’s and Pelosi’s legislative agenda nearly 100% of the time during his two years in Congress..
ahhh....I love the smell of fresh-burnt toast in the morning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1N3rbwRA_k
BUSTED!
Her vote is her business.
Why wouldn’t a democrat running for office want to say she voted for Obama?
What could possibly be the downside of that?
Unless, of course, you know that people really oppose what you (and he) believe in.
I think dems KNOW their beliefs are not shared by the majority of people. But I also think they view this as proof of their own superiority over “the commoners”.
It must be nice to never make mistakesEveryone makes mistakes. It's only a tragedy if you never learn from them.
The race between McConnell and Grimes has more complications besides just voting R or D. If Grimes is elected, she will increase the dem count by one, and will be a newbie, junior sen with little to no influence or power.
If McConnell is elected, he'll likely be GOP leader. If the GOP takes the majority in the senate (as is anticipated) he might be majority leader and the gatekeeper to the legislation that makes it to the floor. Is this the guy we want controlling what legislation is allowed to be voted on? He talks a good fight, but that's just paying lip service to the media when the camera's are on him. Has he otherwise taken a stand against the GOPe and the Dems and followed through on anything? Forget conservative-purity for a moment and think about what legislation can we expect McConnell, as Senate Maj Leader, to allow through regarding *any* conservative issue: amnesty, the border, 0bamacare, spending, etc.?
If I am endeavoring to be a reasonable and prudent person when deliberating on how to vote and I pause to consider what sort of damage either candidate can inflict if elected, McConnell seems more influential, more powerful, more in control and thus a bigger risk *IF* he remains in GOPe's pocket. And I see no indication he won't be in the GOPe's pocket.
Or maybe he's a swell guy who can be counted on to at least allow conservative legislation (on whatever subject) to be voted up or down and let the chips fall where they may. If anyone thinks so, by all means - make a pitch for him.
For now, based on what I see, hear and read, the choices both stink. I'd say KY voters are damned if they do and damned if they don't and the nation will likely suffer to one extent or another, regardless of the outcome.
Dems have had it both ways for decades.
We should count our lucky stars if the population has had its eyes opened by the likes of nobama. It happened with Jimmah, and seems even the dems now say nobama is worse than the peanut farmer.
Agreed. Love to see Reid removed, hate to see McConnell as his replacment.
In a perfect world we’d get the majority with a McConnell loss.
Probably 300 more pieces of legislation than the current majority leader.
If the choice is mcconnel vs reid, can you, "trying to be reasonable" honestly say that there is no difference or that harry reid would be better for the country?
If the choice is mcconnel vs reid, can you, "trying to be reasonable" honestly say that there is no difference or that harry reid would be better for the country?Not at all. I'm saying that if we are confident the R's will take a majority in the senate *AND* If we are confident McConnell will continue to work against or ignore conservative issues & legislation *AND* if we don't want McConnell controlling the flow of legislation -- then McConnell is more of a risk to conservative issues than Grimes ever could be as a junior, nobody senator from KY.
Now, since you aren't confident that the R's will gain the majority in the senate and are convinced that Grimes will tilt the balance in favor of the d's, then by all means, re-elect McConnell.
She did everything except tap dancing to divert the question.
I’m fairly confident that, as you said, McConnell will allow “300 more pieces of legislation than the current majority leader”. Based on what we’ve all seen, heard and/or read about him, those “300 more pieces of legislation” will likely include (with his strong urging) amnesty for illegal aliens, the GOPe changes/extensions to 0bamacare (not it’s repeal), more federal spending, etc.
I seriously doubt it will include any restrictions on the IRS, any mandated action on the border fence, any reductions or significant changes in the tax code; and on and on and on... No one should be surprised with what they get with McConnell. We all know better. He’s a political prostitute owned by the GOPe who actively and publicly fights *against* conservative members and he’s in-line to be the most powerful senator in congress when the Republicans regain the senate majority.
If we are scared we won’t regain the senate majority, then every R counts and you should vote for McConnell. If we are confident we will regain the senate majority with ample room to spare, I’d toss his conniving @$$ overboard faster than you could blink. In the latter scenario, Grimes is no threat to anything or anyone. Anyone with two-brain-cells to rub together should feel the same.
What they don't understand is if they withdraw and don't vote or even vote for the other side, they lose all influence within the republican party. However, none of these people have ever been accused of being smart.
Well, it certainly will enable you to keep complaining over and over and over and over again.
If you really see no difference, I think it is best you leave elections for others to decide.
He sure is spending a lot of money to win it “easily” against a ditz like Grimes.
I’ve articulated the clear difference and the clear-headed options available in the two different scenarios outlined.
What have you offered?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.