The Washington Post is reporting it as one of the most painful 40 seconds of this election cycle. Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) was asked a simple question: did you vote for President Obama. What followed in the clip below was one of the most revealing 40 seconds of how bad this election is becoming for Democrats and how radioactive the President has become. Grimes refuses to answer. She is trying to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) and these mid-term elections tend to reflect the view of the incumbent president as some voters try to either add support or resistance to a president in Congress. Obama’s popularity stands at a dismal 30 percent in Kentucky. The clip is particularly interesting given the recent public statements of the President that this election is about his policies. It was an effort to rally Democrats but candidates who have been increasingly fleeing associations with the unpopular president cringed across the country. Given Obama’s national polling, an election based his policies and Administration would magnify the already great expected losses in November, including the possible loss of both houses. Even long-time ally and former campaign manager David Axelrod said that the President’s framing of the election as a vote on his policies was a huge mistake. The deer in the headlights look of Grimes reflects that point vividly.
The President’s words actually started out reflecting the national strategy of the Democratic National Committee to minimize his profile and policies in this election but he then veered directly into the wall that the Democrats are trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to avoid:
“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”
You could hear Democratic candidates collectively moaning with the last part of the message. Grimes vividly illustrates the fear of association with Obama. Grimes repeatedly refuses to even admit that she voted for the leader of her party in 2008 and 2012. It was, as the Post notes, an easy question to address. Just say that you voted for him but you are disappointed in him. Instead, Grimes refuses repeatedly to answer the question from the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board.
She then takes an equally curious spin by insisting that she is a Hillary Clinton supporter, something that is only marginally better in Kentucky.
I continually find such transformations among politicians fascinating. They will flock around a popular president as they once did with Obama but have no hesitation to treat him like a pariah once his polling numbers fall. It does not play well, as shown on this video, but they assume it is worse to admit even the slightest level of prior support for an unpopular president.
Civil libertarians have long been opposed to Obama, who quickly shredded his promised reforms from the first election and launched comprehensive attack on privacy, press rights, and other core values. However, civil libertarians remain a small part of the electorate, which is why they were the first to be jettisoned by the Obama Administration. Now there is a far broader level of opposition building around policies like immigration, health care, and international relations — the very policies that Obama highlighted as the real issue for races like that of Grimes.
Grimes is the daughter of Charlotte and Jerry Lundergan, a former Kentucky Democratic chairman and state representative. She is also a law graduate of American University. Grimes was viewed as serious challenge to McConnell who could be attacked as the classic Washington insider. However, she has been criticized for a lackluster campaign. What is fascinating is that her lead among women is only one percent, according to an article in The Week.
There is still a possibility of the classic “October surprise” factor in shifting such polls and prospects. At the moment, Obama could be looking at the lamest of lame duck terms if both houses go to the GOP. He is not alone. Democratic candidates are even turning on Nancy Pelosi on the campaign trail. The wedge political issues advanced by Pelosi over things like immigration have not panned out. Instead there has been a back lash that led Obama to promise Democrats that he would not act on immigration until after voters went to the polls. Gwen Graham, one of the Democratic Party’s candidates in Florida ran an ad saying “Here’s what I believe: Congress is broken” — it showed a picture of Pelosi as well as John Boehner. Other candidates are doing the same — running against their own leader in the house. These are strange times indeed.
I can’t even fathom how an oathkeeper thinks and quite seriously I don’t want to. Hope y’all stay on the fringes where you belong. Have a nice day. 🙂
SWM, of course he says the right to marry isn’t tied to the Constitution. Funny how conservatives now want government to stay out of marriage. We never heard this before the advent of same sex marriage.
Explain how that would not infringe natural rights?
“Untangle government from the institution of marriage and then allow the culture to define what they will recognize as marriage.” Sounds scary… What if the culture is for slavery?
Not at all SWM.
Tying legal benefits into the right to marry entangles government into what should be a private, socially-defined institution. This has led to the denying equal treatment under the law and that is unconstitutional.
Untangle government from the institution of marriage and then allow the culture to define what they will recognize as marriage.
“Olly Are you saying same sex marriage is a natural right?”
NOT answering for Olly.
The right to pursue happiness is a natural right (as long as that doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights) would include the right to be married or cohabitate with the person of your choice. So yes, I would say so.
That doesn’t give anyone the right to demand monetary consideration from others for that right. This is where we get into trouble when the government gets in the middle of marriage by giving tax breaks, inheritance laws (all of which have to do with $$$$) and generally getting in the middle of marriage and creating discrimination by favoring treatment of one class [married] over another [single].
The government should butt out of marriage.
You also don’t have the right to force religious institutions to officiate at ANY marriage or to force religious institutions to accept a marriage that is contrary to their beliefs. THAT is infringing on some one else’s rights.
DBQ – so, if I wanted to cohabit with my sister, because that would make us happy, that would make it a natural right?
“swarthmoremom,
It’s got nothing to do with GOP and everything to do with recognizing natural rights. I don’t need alignment to a platform to get my direction.” Olly Are you saying same sex marriage is a natural right?
” Guess you California GOPers are a little more librul on social issues than your Texas counterparts.”
Woaaahh. Not everyone is exactly the same and not everyone thinks in lockstep. Go figure. Whoda thunk it?
“Business owners I know are planning to cut hours, layoff employees, and raise their prices. We are currently deciding what to do ourselves”
Exactly. The person on another thread who said business will just stay in business as long as there is a profit and that we can just pass the costs of regulations on to the buyers, has no concept of the multitudes of factors that go into making business decisions. The market will only bear a certain raise in prices before people just stop buying your product or using your services.
We don’t have employees other than my husband as a salaried employee of our corporation. Any outside work is done by independent contractors. Employees are the most necessary part of many businesses and the most expensive. The other issue that many do not even consider is that when you raise the minimum wage or any wage by X dollars there are other costs that have to be factored in. Employer contributions to SS,. Medicare, State Disability [SDI], State Unemployment [UI], Employment Training Tax [EET], Federal UI. Lots of MATH…..which we all know is really hard 🙂 The resulting extra taxes amount to approximately 8% in total to the employer (depending on your location) for each dollar of payroll. Doesn’t sound like much but if you have many employees then you get to multiply that figure and it ADDS UP.
Then if you are a nice employer who wants to have health insurance for your FULL TIME employees, the fun really begins. The costs are phenomenal and punitive. If you have over 50 full time employees it is less expensive to either 1.) reduce to under 50 employees. Lay off people 2.) convert more employees to part time 3.) just pay the annual penalty for not offering insurance at all which is very much less expensive than a group health plan. 4.) have no employees if you are a small enough business and outsource your occasional labor to independent contractors.
Lawmakers who have zero concept of business, economics or human nature are always surprised when their best laid plans gang aft aglay.
swarthmoremom,
It’s got nothing to do with GOP and everything to do with recognizing natural rights. I don’t need alignment to a platform to get my direction.
Karen S, Guess you California GOPers are a little more librul on social issues than your Texas counterparts. 🙂
In the 70’s, only about 50% of members of the American Psychiatric Association supported removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It wasn’t until around the year 2000 that the US Surgeon General announced that sexual orientation cannot be changed.
So I expect it will still be common for a while yet for the idea of sexual conversion to persist. I believe they used aversion therapy to create negative associations with homosexual feelings. But creating heterosexual attraction was impossible. It is now recognized as harmful to essentially traumatize someone with aversion therapy for his innate sexual orientation. However, this therapy is still used to treat pedophiles (which is an entirely different orientation than either heterosexual or homosexual, and recognized in the DSM.)
I am glad that society has changed so much in just the past decade or two, to accept homosexuality as a natural variant. If two grown, consenting adults find happiness together, who are we to stand in their way?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/08/us/texas-gop-gay-therapy/
Right. Here we go:
http://www.mercurynews.com/my-town/ci_26541167/castro-valley-winery-fined-115-000-using-volunteers
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/20072/wendy-davis-ad-hammers-greg-abbott-decades-hypocrisy ” A tree fell on Greg Abbott. He sued and got millions. Since then he spent his career working against other victims. Abbott argued a woman whose leg was amputated was not disabled because she had an artificial limb. He ruled against a rape victim who sued a corporation for failing to do a background check on a sexual predator. He sided with a hospital that failed to stop a dangerous surgeon who paralyzed patients.
Greg Abbott. He’s not for you.
The ad is essentially an exclamation point that ties together the Davis campaign’s disciplined messaging assault that began in the lead-up to this past summer’s TDP convention. Abbott is the insider’s insider. Abbott is not working for you. Abbott is working against rape victims, cancer patients, and even the school children of Texas. He is using his office to cover up grants that gave millions of taxpayer dollars to his cronies and donors.
The issue, of course is not that Greg Abbott is in a wheelchair — the issue is that after his own accident, he sued and received millions, and ever since he has spent his career denying other Texans the same justice he received. His record points to a disarming lack of concern for the people of Texas.
It’s a hard-hitting ad, and it makes clear that the Davis campaign is doing everything they can to persuade moderate voters and independents that when it comes down to it, Greg Abbott isn’t working for you. ” While Abbott is a hypocrite, I would not have run the wheel chair ad. Davis does not have much to loose though because Texas will stay deep red. There are just way too many anti-gay christian fundamentalist voters there for Wendy to have a chance. I guess “gay conversion therapy” is still popular there. It was when i lived there.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-10/move-over-barack-obama-the-clintons-are-taking-over
Oh, and for anyone who wonders if raising the minimum rage affects jobs –
Business owners I know are planning to cut hours, layoff employees, and raise their prices. We are currently deciding what to do ourselves.
Rather than repeat theoretical articles by economists who’ve never employed anyone, a suggestion is to simply ask a business owner what they are going to do.
Remember, there is no magic money tree that springs up overnight. If we do away with entry level training type jobs, there are consequences.
I recall a winery here in CA is now going out of business. They always allowed novice vintners to volunteer at their winery, to learn the business. They had a community of people who would take free classes, and pitch in at harvest, so they could learn how to grow grapes on their own property and make wine. The Department of Labor fined them over a hundred thousand dollars. (This was a micro winery that made about $10,000/year). So . . . out of business. And all those volunteers are shocked and furious.
Gallup has Obama’s approval ration at 39%.
Regardless of which poll anyone prefers, it’s certainly clear that Democratic politicians themselves acknowledge being associated with Obama is problematic with the approaching election. It’s become painfully clear that politicians do not want to be seen with him or closely associated with him. Although, he has been quite useful as a fundraiser, as long as he does it far away. He still has wealthy supporters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx
It’s not only Kentucky Dem female candidates who screwed the pooch this week. Wendy Davis in Texas ran an ad mocking her wheelchair bound opponent! Now, the hardcore Dems here will defend it and maybe applaud the ad. But, all an ad like that does is alienate ANY voter on the fence, presumably votes she’s trying to get. Sometimes candidates just fall in love w/ preachin’ to the choir and giving their base red meat. We independents decide elections and we despise despicable ads like hers. I expect SWM to defend Davis. She loves her.
Many people find it hard to explain why they could not vote for ….
I see this as a basic consumer (citizen) choice issue. If we are shopping for the best candidate then we have the right to ask any question we feel is necessary to make the best choice. The candidate has the option to answer as many questions as they want and as fully as necessary to convince the voter they deserve the vote. Grimes was asked a perfectly legitimate question and her answer IMO, was actually the most telling of her character. To any reasonable mind, she is now, politically DEAD.