Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:50 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Ashley Judd continues to taunt McConnell Back to Topics
btc1

Champion Author
Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 8:33:19 AM

Why is the most powerful Republican in the world so scare of competition from Ashley Judd? In a very red state? He continues to attack her?

Ashley Judd is making serious consideration.

McConnell has even produced an ad attacking her!
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 8:09:09 PM

Thanks mini! It has been fun to see how far left I could get with Rand face!

Now back to real life...
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 6:36:50 PM

My hat is off to btc1 for following through with my bet with him that A. Judd would not be the KY Democrat running against Senator McConnell in 2014--and wearing the avatar of my choice (which was our junior Senator, Dr. Rand Paul). He's been a good sport.

It has been at times bitter-sweet, because of btc1's liberalism--but we're a fairly small bunch here, so I believe most have understood the non sequitur betwixt his avatar and his postings.

Congrats again btc1. You've been a good sport. Your 30 days of having to play a conservative, Constitutional libertarian are now over.

(I have a few extra avatar suggestions if you're looking for one.) ;-D
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 12:35:33 PM

Washington does need to listen to what the majority of the voting public wants. You can sit back and call them stupid, the American voting public, but, that is how this country has always worked. Majority rule.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 12:29:29 PM

The PPAC has been shown to be a popular prospect with the majority of Americans. If not, I doubt the President would have been re-elected. I am sure there could be many things kept, but, some will need fixing.

Everyone can speculate, but, until the enactment begins, no one will be sure of anything. We will have to see what happens. It will need the fixing as we go, I am sure. To throw it out before it is implemented is just the wrong way. There was a reason after all that it became campaign issue and a law anyway. A fix to healthcare and it's rising costs was needed. The people spoke.



[Edited by: btc1 at 4/17/2013 12:35:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 12:02:54 PM

"I bet you think he and I could not find common ground for Kentucky, don't you? I will need to drag his attention back to Kentucky, but, I bet we can. I, for instance, do not want to throw out Obamacare all together, but, I would like to fix some things as I will study for feasibility of it's effectiveness. More to come..... tax season is over, I have a little more time, soon."

Wrong approach. It needs to be thrown out and bills introduced to fix the few things that are wrong with our medical insurance industry. They did the opposite...they fixed things that were not broken and tried to put government controls where they are not needed.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 12:01:16 PM

btc, pretty large ifs in there. If grandma were a male he would have been grandpa if you get my drift!
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 8:13:09 AM

Not really, mini. I am going to have to get used to seeing a lot of him! We could be working together in 2015!
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 8:08:52 AM

You've been a good sport, btc. Tomorrow you'll be two-thirds of the way there (although I'm sure it seems like much longer).

Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 6:45:39 AM

I just want to look Senatorial, mini. My junior to his senior, well I could not wish for more!

It will be good to get out of the rat suit, soon though! LOL!

I bet you think he and I could not find common ground for Kentucky, don't you? I will need to drag his attention back to Kentucky, but, I bet we can. I, for instance, do not want to throw out Obamacare all together, but, I would like to fix some things as I will study for feasibility of it's effectiveness. More to come..... tax season is over, I have a little more time, soon.

[Edited by: btc1 at 4/17/2013 6:49:23 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 7:58:59 PM

btc1, if the roles were exactly reversed and two Republican operatives surreptitiously tape recorded a Democrat's campaign HQ where a private meeting was taking place where his staff was discussing potential Republican candidates' strengths and weaknesses--somehow I don't think you'd be parsing the law and trying to show the trespassers had not broken the law--let alone at the same time blaming the Democrat for discussing topics in his campaign strategy meeting, let alone talking about possible "mail fraud," "criminal charges" and "ethics violations" your Democrat *may* have committed if some of his campaign staff are also part of his Senate staff.

btc1: "It will be investigated."

Yes, it will. And, you have an FBI that has turned one investigation over to a Democrat appointee, and as a Democrat you'll want the other investigation to also be turned over to the U.S. Attorney.

You have the wind at your sails. And so if things don't go your way, it won't be because things weren't in your Democrat-favored favor. It will be because there was no way to parse legally what those two criminals did--and because hit squad CREW's trumped up charges against McConnell are partisan and frivolous.

What you and CREW are doing is trying to keep the focus off of the criminals and their crime--by inventing another. And that wouldn't occur to you (or CREW) if the shoe were on the other foot. Perhaps only then could you see the unfair, partisan absurdity of your current approach about these matters. I guess only a hopeless partisan cannot see what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

IMHO

(By the way, have I told you lately how handsome and presidential you're looking? ;-D )

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/16/2013 8:07:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 5:46:17 PM

Here is possibly one, AF.

"According to 18 USC § 641, “Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another… money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years.” In 1993 a former House employee pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of government property after it was discovered he did campaign work at the same time he said he was conducting official business. Also, according to 18 USC § 1341 – Frauds and swindles, paying congressional staff for campaign work may constitute mail fraud, and in 1979 another former House member was prosecuted for mail fraud for putting campaign workers on his congressional payroll. If McConnell used anyone on his legislative staff to do opposition research, or paid campaign workers from his Senate payroll, he broke federal law on two separate counts and is in violation of Senate ethics rules."

If he is using his Senate staff in his campaign then that may constitute an ethics violation. I know it is JUST an ethics violation, but, that is a criminal charge if it turns out that he has been using staff while on duty for his campaign. Yeah, February 2 was a Sunday, but, how do we know what consists, at this point of what is or is not Senate staff business? It will be investigated.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,382
Points:1,130,765
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 5:03:39 PM

btc1 I am surprised at you!!
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 4:03:58 PM

You really want to put those Judd's in office? The new phrase around Washington would be "hello boys, did you miss me?".
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 3:18:02 PM

btc, what criminal activity has McConnell been involved in?
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 3:12:35 PM


And eldiablo, "It is a shame when we continute to put the same crook back in
office over and over again!"

That is the reason Kentucky must rid itself of the Mitch!

It is time to fix Washington (Congress) for America.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 3:05:30 PM

"I agree with that statement but the "fools" are the one that continue to hold to dear to party lines instead of voting for the most qualified candidate. It is a shame when we continute to put the same crook back in office over and over again!"

That is no joke and we have seen it over and over again. Some voters just do not get it.
Profile Pic
eldiablopoco
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,055
Points:57,080
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 2:54:20 PM

but like you said, not a lot of politicians seem like they are in it for us but for them. Whether it is just their ego or to gain something of benefit it appears more and more politicians do it for themselves.

I agree with that statement but the "fools" are the one that continue to hold to dear to party lines instead of voting for the most qualified candidate. It is a shame when we continute to put the same crook back in office over and over again!
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 2:02:15 PM

"You stole all you could steal and didn't want to get caught? :-)...."


*ROTFL*!!!!!
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 1:31:05 PM

"Its also about knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em. I knew it was time for me to get out...so I did. And I have no regrets looking back."

You stole all you could steal and didn't want to get caught? :-)....

j/k...but like you said, not a lot of politicians seem like they are in it for us but for them. Whether it is just their ego or to gain something of benefit it appears more and more politicians do it for themselves.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 2:14:44 AM

"When we're talking about electing representatives, now, the past is relevant, because it may indicate potential problems for the future. "


That's the thing about electing people.

Depending on the party affiliation, some people turn that "may" into an uncrossable bridge...while others, depending on that same party affiliation consider that "may" water under the bridge and all in the past.

It is what it is...

Good night, brother.
Profile Pic
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,198
Points:1,856,355
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 12:23:03 AM

I was a youngin' but I worked for McGovern and Eagleton. Don't think that all didn't hurt...God may forgive and forget, man rarely forgets and is slim on forgiveness, and they will take your mental health and multiple it by 100. Just like they multiple alleged sexual improprieties.

Best to find a candidate that can stand up to the scrutiny......and not buckle if their mental health becomes the focus of the campaign. Gotta be tough, just like here on GB.



Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 12:22:35 AM

When we're talking about electing representatives, now, the past is relevant, because it may indicate potential problems for the future.

I'm not worried about Judd using--although stats show that it is a minority in recovery who remain in recovery. But, she also has her problems with severe anxiety and depression, and those are fair considerations. Although I do believe in the miracle of complete and total healing, those kinds of issues aren't verboten from consideration in a potential candidate. They never have been in the past, and there's certainly no reason to change the rules now.

Although the past is the past, we bring ourselves with us. If you moved from San Bernardino to Louisville, you would bring yourself with you. I can move from Kentucky to California, and I will bring myself with me.

I'll bring my weak wrist from a past broken arm, I'll bring my weak left knee that will no longer allow me to run a mini-marathon, and the weak neck from an auto accident.

The traumas happened in the past, I have had rehab--but those weaknesses go with me wherever I go. So they do matter today. There is really no way to leave them in the past. They are a part of me.

That's not to say we kick someone when they're down, but that's not what we're doing here. I see people unfairly kicking Mitch McConnell for a staff member simply mentioning it in a brainstorming session where they were supposed to be putting all considerations on the table.

As voters, we're hiring an employee to do a job. Some employees are better qualified for the stresses of certain types of jobs than others. Had she run and won, Ms. Judd might have been strong as a rock. But she does have a past that could portend possible indications for the future, and the odds of complete remission from her issues are not in her favor. And that is fair game for discussion and consideration.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/16/2013 12:23:17 AM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 12:02:41 AM

"Norm, I think you're being a little bit hard on her with your "stones" commentary."


I donno; bringing up something from almost 50 years ago, as "proof" was way off.







"A persons past record is the best and only predictor of possible future activity". "

That is wrong on so many levels. People change; God changes people...if we were to use only someone's past as a "predictor" almost no one would ever pass people's scrutiny.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 11:44:44 PM

Norm, I think you're being a little bit hard on her with your "stones" commentary. Sometimes the past does matter, if it might shed a light into the future.

"A persons past record is the best and only predictor of possible future activity".
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 11:38:29 PM

"and you think it doesn't matter."


What matters is that the past remain the past, especially if people have moved on...unless of course you're without sin and are 1st in line to cast your stones...
Profile Pic
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,198
Points:1,856,355
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 11:19:11 PM

THe past....1972. Tom Eagleton...Wiki

McGovern then asked Senator Gaylord Nelson to be his running mate. Nelson declined but suggested Tom Eagleton, whom McGovern ultimately chose, with only a minimal background check. Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations, and in fact decided with his wife to keep them secret from McGovern while he was flying to his first meeting with the Presidential nominee.

[edit] Replacement on the ticket

McGovern said he would back Eagleton "1000 percent". Subsequently, McGovern consulted confidentially with preeminent psychiatrists, including Eagleton's own doctors, who advised him that a recurrence of Eagleton's depression was possible and could endanger the country should Eagleton become president.[8][9][10][11][12] On August 1, Eagleton withdrew at McGovern's request and, after a new search by McGovern, was replaced by Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver.[13]

A Time magazine poll taken at the time found that 77 percent of the respondents said "Eagleton's medical record would not affect their vote." Nonetheless, the press made frequent references to his 'shock therapy', and McGovern feared that this would detract from his campaign platform.[14]

McGovern's handling of the controversy was an opening for the Republican campaign to raise serious questions about his judgment. In the general election, the Democratic ticket won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

......and you think it doesn't matter.


[Edited by: mexicomaria at 4/15/2013 11:21:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 10:43:56 PM

ministorage: "It's about strength of character. Nobody makes a criminal become a criminal."

RNorm: "Its also about knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em. I knew it was time for me to get out...so I did. And I have no regrets looking back."

That I can respect. Knowing our limits is a good thing. If more people lived their lives in that manner, perhaps this world would be a better place. :)

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/15/2013 10:44:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 10:37:19 PM

btc1: "mini, "You're one good looking white man." "No further comment is needed. You have said more in that statement than any further comment I would have on it. No, I will not fall for the bait."

Well, okay, but, it's a bit non seq. to say no comment is needed --and THEN leave commentary about it. So...since you're commenting, what is this "bait" you speak of that you are not going to fall for, or comment further about? (Yeah, I know. Like you said, no further comment is needed. I got your slur. I know you're trying to paint people with your broad brush again. So, I'll just ask you to put down the paint brush and step away from the paint can.)

btc1: "Now, about Ms. Judd and her admitted mental health treatments. She owned up to it. It was not dirt dug up by the McConnellists."

That's right!! There's nothing at all to "dug up." She wrote a book and has been very open about her issues.

btc1: "The problem, mini, they wanted to try to "own" what she had already owned. It was her property."

This is where you veered off the road. You're now off in Fantasyland, bottoming out the floorboard and banging the crud out of your oilpan driving through that corn field.

Try and follow the bouncing ball; listen to the tape and stop simply making stuff up. They were doing what EVERY campaign does -- brainstorming possibilities on how to 'whac-a-mole' opponents out of the chute, in the beginning, with their own stuff. McConnell doesn't need to "own" anything.

btc1: "They tried to take it for their own use."

Listen to the tape. Somebody brought it up, but NOBODY "tried" to use it for their own use. You're making stuff up.

btc1: "They could not have done that without damage to their own cause. They should not have brought it up for discussion as an assault tactic.

That is your opinion. All of the above is your opinion, and you're being dishonest to keep claiming McConnell's camp "tried" or "used" anything. They were simply brainstorming, and EVERY campaign discusses their opponents' weaknesses. It is a requirement to know their opponent, both their strengths and weaknesses. Claiming that they should not do something that is a requirement of every political campaign is either being totally disingenuous or totally naive. Knowing your admitted work in Democrat campaigns, I would assume we can rule out the latter, so I get your own attempts here at whac-a-moling at McConnell.

"It did backfire on them, anyway. "Now, any opponent will get to use this against McConnell the best way they may."

It backfired alright. Kentucky Democrats will be washing the thermite off their disfigured faces for quite awhile.

Your desperate, demogogic, whac-a-mole smear campaign of McConnell has once again been duly noted. It's about time you start talking about some specific issues, no?

(BTW, have I told you lately how presidential you've been looking over the past couple weeks?)

;-)

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/15/2013 10:41:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 8:44:53 PM

Quick decision, not to run?

Ashley Judd did buy her father's old house in Ashland, just days before she decided not to run.

Or is this the base for the campaign for Rand Paul's seat in 2016?

Would it not be great if I were the senior to her junior, in 2017?!!!
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 8:37:16 PM

mini, "You're one good looking white man." No further comment is needed. You have said more in that statement than any further comment I would have on it. No, I will not fall for the bait.

Now, about Ms. Judd and her admitted mental health treatments. She owned up to it. It was not dirt dug up by the McConnellists. The problem, mini, they wanted to try to "own" what she had already owned. It was her property. they tried to take it for their own use. They could not have done that without damage to their own cause. They should not have brought it up for discussion as an assault tactic. It did backfire on them, anyway.

Now, any opponent will get to use this against McConnell the best way they may.

[Edited by: btc1 at 4/15/2013 8:39:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 6:19:00 PM

"It's about strength of character. Nobody makes a criminal become a criminal."


Its also about knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em. I knew it was time for me to get out...so I did. And I have no regrets looking back.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,264
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 5:45:31 PM

I read a book once that said something like this.

.
.
"A persons past record is the best and only predicator of possible future activity".
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 4:58:00 PM

"I didn't want to become yet another well intentioned guy who was became the corrupted monster he set out to defeat."

It's about strength of character. Nobody makes a criminal become a criminal.

IMHO
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 4:56:31 PM

"My money is on the ruse...And he came by that misuse of funds honestly...after all, his dad did the same thing (misuse of funds) to pay his mistress to avoid having a child support issue...SMH"

Well, at least I think we can all agree Ashley Judd comes by her stated emotional an mental problems honestly. ;)
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 4:48:59 PM

Sad to say, not many.

I know a county supervisor here...ran on a platform of cleaning up the county. Do you know where he is now? In jail for his part in a corruption scandal...And he came from a rich family, so there really was no need for him to do it for the money.

I got out of local politics for that very reason...I didn't want to become yet another well intentioned guy who was became the corrupted monster he set out to defeat.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 4:33:09 PM

RNorm...do you not have trust in our politicians? :-)
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 4:27:47 PM

"Concerning Jackson Jr., I agree we don't know if mental issues was just a ruse to cover for his lack of integrity, lapse in judgement--whatever. "


My money is on the ruse...And he came by that misuse of funds honestly...after all, his dad did the same thing (misuse of funds) to pay his mistress to avoid having a child support issue...SMH
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 4:19:11 PM

RNorm: "The point I'm talking about is the past. Judd's issues were from over a decade ago, Not sure of the exact timeframe...."

As recently as 2006 she spent 47 days in a Texas treatment facility. I'm not so sure of all her problems, but her book revealed it goes back to childhood. Perhaps she's all healed now. (And, she's now out of the picture, so she should be left alone, which press are clearly doing.)

But, back in February, there was no reason McConnell's camp shouldn't have discussed that in a campaign strategy meeting which included discussing potential opponents' weaknesses--at a time when she was (as btc1 even states in THIS Topic Title) "taunt"ing McConnell and considering a run against him for U.S. Senator. They also discussed other potential candidate.

There is nothing nefarious for a political opponent's campaign team to discuss whether or not these types of issues are relevant in a possible upcoming political campaign--that is unless they are planning on lying or "painting" a false impression. But, I am aware of NO such plans; and btc1, worryfree and others who've tried to "paint" McConnell in a bad light in this situation have never produced anything at all to indicate that. (The illegally obtained tape certainly does not indicate that.)

Speaking of nefarious activity and illegally obtained tapes--we wouldn't even be discussing this if not for those two over-zealous Kentucky Democrat criminals--on record that their goal was to defeat McConnell at all costs--who surreptitiously bugged McConnell's HQ strategy meeting with a recording device.

Concerning Jackson Jr., I agree we don't know if mental issues was just a ruse to cover for his lack of integrity, lapse in judgement--whatever. And yes, many have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (and fallen far short of the hopes of their electorate).

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/15/2013 4:24:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 3:09:36 PM

worry, they didn't now did they? She backed out before so we will never know what their campaign strategy would have been. Anything more than that is pure conjecture.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,291
Points:2,420,125
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:57:22 PM

If Ashley is talking about her mental health issues than McConnell does not need to and would do so only to try and win at any cost. No altruism in politics...
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:50:14 PM

"I can't believe you actually think they're kind of the same. One revealed the type of organization two men CHOSE to belong to--and the other is a condition that could reveal an ongoing emotional weakness that might not make a person suitable for some jobs. "

The point I'm talking about is the past. Judd's issues were from over a decade ago, Not sure of the exact timeframe, because I'm not one to keep up with hollywood...








"What if voters in Illinois had known a little more about Jesse Jackson Jr.? Who knew about his issues? "

I don't think Jesse is the only one in congress with issues...he's just one of the few that got caught. And I think the bi-polar issue (if it really was that) was, in my opinion, really the stress from knowing you've been caught and could possibly go to jail. If you think about it, nothing ever happened with him BEFORE he knew he was under investigation (even after his the revelation of an affair)...and then all of a sudden he has mental issues; so I think it was simply cover for his impending plea deal...

Just my 2 cents...

[Edited by: RNorm at 4/15/2013 2:53:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,576
Points:3,142,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:50:12 PM


RNorm, "There used to be a time when families were off limits, now it seems that's where the desperate campaigns start first..."

I wonder if Sarah Palin noticed that.

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:31:31 PM

AF: "mini, and from my understanding it wasn't even McConnell that said it...it was one of his campaign people."

That's correct. They were brainstorming with what-if issues, and one of his staffers brought it up.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:29:28 PM

"There used to be a time when families were off limits, now it seems that's where the desperate campaigns start first..."

The same Democrat super PAC that bugged McConnell's private meeting is the group that had to publicly apologize for the racial comments about McConnell's wife.

"If she [Ashley Judd] (or anyone) has moved past that (her mental and emotional issues) and has not demonstrated relapses, then what happened shouldn't be a campaign issue..."

That's a big IF. We don't know IF she has moved past her mental issues or not. She's clearly had her share of problems, and is in the middle of another big one now--she's now in the middle of a divorce. Concerns about the stress of divorce--alone--has been enough to put the brakes on political candidacies, let alone any history of emotional issues which include severe anxiety and depression.

"Kinda like always trying to paint Byrd and Thurmond as present supporters of the KKK, when that was well over 50 years ago."

I can't believe you actually think they're kind of the same. One revealed the type of organization two men CHOSE to belong to--and the other is a condition that could reveal an ongoing emotional weakness that might not make a person suitable for some jobs.

When it's a Democrat in question, I don't want Democrats deciding for me what should be a campaign issue any more than when it's a Republican in question would I want Republicans deciding for me which information should be censored about the Republican candidate. I cannot believe you'd actually support that! BOTH types of issues should be made available to voters. On all sides.

(And, if our system has ever included hiding the past or hiding mental and emotional issues of candidates--that clearly doesn't make it right.)

Again, I don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican. I prefer stuff be in the open. An informed electorate is better than an ill-informed electorate.

What if voters in Illinois had known a little more about Jesse Jackson Jr.? Who knew about his issues?

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/15/2013 2:33:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:20:32 PM

RNorm, isn't this how conversations are supposed to go? :-)

I know it is easy to get heated in politics though.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:19:31 PM

"Not always...McCain put some things off the table when he ran against Obama; other people have done it as well. Only desperate campaigns put everything on the table because its "win at any cost" and such folks have no decency, morals or scruples."

I think what he was saying is that they were brain storming on different ways to attack Judd. Who knows what ones he would have used if Judd had decided to run.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,885
Points:1,839,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:15:29 PM

mini, and from my understanding it wasn't even McConnell that said it...it was one of his campaign people.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:08:32 PM

AF, just wanted to add you to my list of thanks for being able to have good convo without the other crap that has plagued these forums...appreciate that bro.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,180
Points:1,274,475
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 2:02:35 PM

"It was a campaign strategy meeting. In those situations, you put it all out on the table."


Not always...McCain put some things off the table when he ran against Obama; other people have done it as well. Only desperate campaigns put everything on the table because its "win at any cost" and such folks have no decency, morals or scruples.

Kinda like some people on here who have no problems dragging people's families into conversations when the family has nothing to do with the politics. There used to be a time when families were off limits, now it seems that's where the desperate campaigns start first...

We were talking about this kinda thing last night at our couples study: when does the past become the past? Sanford won the runoff so he's the GOP candidate in SC. We all know what he did, but he has seemingly paid his dues, so there is no need to dredge up that past...

I don't think Colbert's sister would do it, but I'm sure there are deep pocket PAC's that will have no qualms trying to color Sanford as unfit because of what happened a few years ago...in fact there are some conservatives folks ON HERE who would NEVER vote for him simply because he cheated on his wife (they've stated that numerous times). Being an adulterer doesn't make you a bad politician; just a poor husband.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:53:44 PM

RNorm: "If what was reported from Mitch's meeting was true, then they were intending to do the same thing, try to paint her as someone unfit for office because of what happened years ago."

We've been over this. It was a campaign strategy meeting. In those situations, you put it all out on the table. They were discussing posibilites, and we DO NOT know what they were "intending to do" or what they would have used. They were reviewing tapes of Judd's own words. Those Democrat super Pac buffoons who bugged McConnell's private meeting did A. Judd a big favor. She was about to get herself in over her head.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 4/15/2013 1:55:12 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics