Kentucky Newspapers Endorse Alison Lundergan Grimes

[MarcATL]

She's still going to lose. On the other hand, Democrats might have an outside shot in Georgia now. Nunn seems to have gotten some momentum in the last week, likely due to Perdue's asinine outsourcing remark.

I voted for her Dad, Sam Nunn and he did a great job for the state of Georgia and the country. I am skeptical about voting for a married woman with 2 kids that uses he maiden name instead of her married name to run for office. I wonder why she does that?

For the very reason you stated, her pops did a bang up job. Name recognition.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Wry Catcher]

Grimes said who she voted for for president in 2008 and 2012 yet?

She ashamed to admit it in public.

She's toast. Plain and simple

I don't like ole floppy-face, but he knows how to win, and right now that's important.

A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama. Sorry but that's just how it happens. All the so called Blue Dogs turned yellow when threatened by the party and they all toed the line.

Another half-truth, can't Rabbi ever be honest? Let's consider when thinking about this question (Rabbi and honesty) as to how the Republicans in the H. of Rep. vote? Lockstep?! And even the current Speaker, a supposed leader, he puts his job ahead of the country and the majority of Real Republicans.

 

[mudwhistle]

Grimes said who she voted for for president in 2008 and 2012 yet?

She ashamed to admit it in public.

She's toast. Plain and simple

I don't like ole floppy-face, but he knows how to win, and right now that's important.

A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama. Sorry but that's just how it happens. All the so called Blue Dogs turned yellow when threatened by the party and they all toed the line.

Another half-truth, can't Rabbi ever be honest? Let's consider when thinking about this question (Rabbi and honesty) as to how the Republicans in the H. of Rep. vote? Lockstep?! And even the current Speaker, a supposed leader, he puts his job ahead of the country and the majority of Real Republicans.

Nope.

Even Obama said so.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

It's the only explanation for his sudden attack of honesty.

First he says he may not be on the ballot, but his policies are, then he repeated this mistake by saying that every Democrat is in his pocket. They're trying to distance themselves, but after the election they'll all come home and do what the party wants.

 

[Meathead]

Well, in your case it was ignorance. Christine O'Donnell (the witch) did not run against your hero Harry Reid. The other idiot, Synthia, claimed that when Reagan left office he was decidedly unpopular.

You are both low-information partisan hacks who can't be bothered with or manipulate facts to conform to whatever idiotic agenda you have at the moment.

BTW,

Well, in your case it was ignorance. Christine O'Donnell (the witch) did not run against your hero Harry Reid. The other idiot, Synthia, claimed that when Reagan left office he was decidedly unpopular.

You are both low-information partisan hacks who can't be bothered with or manipulate facts to conform to whatever idiotic agenda you have at the moment.

Gee, I made an error, a mistake. It's not that I attempted to misrepresent a fact - for the truth of the matter is the Crazy New Right did nominate a candidate who needed to assure the world she was not a witch. Unlike asshole like you , Rabbi, CrusaderFrank and other fools, I'm willing to admit when I err. Assholes jump on errors, and FYI, there is a word in the English Language which describes such behavior, CAVIL.

Since you have no idea of the meaning, I will help educated you (if it's possible you can be educated, the jury is out on the question).

Cavil, to raise trivial and frivolous objections (done when someone has nothing of substance to offer).

Reagan's leaving office with a 63% approval rating shows how unpopular he is. Stop whining and tell Synthia to admit he erred.

If you can show me where I erred, I'll admit to it. Bear in mind some or more likely to make careless mistakes than others. Btw, do you think Texas is landlocked?

Not to be captious, but isn't the "or" in your sentence above supposed to be "are". I suppose some are more likely to make careless mistakes than others. Maybe, I judge to harshly, is English your native language (or do speak Texlish?).

I speak three languages fluently, English among them. Sorry, you come off as a dime-a-dozen hack

Please post the above personal attack in two other languages.

Εισε απιστευτος μαλακας.

Tý jseš blazen.

Now stop whining and bottom-feeding. If you stop posting second-rate idiocies, you won't get called on them.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ummm...because she wants the association with her dad?

Do you consider that ethical or opportunistic?

It's certainly opportunistic. Is taking an opportunity to remind people who your father is a bad thing?

I don't know how ethics enter into it at all.

It was definitely opportunistic for Marion Morrison to change his name to John Wayne. Was it a bad thing?

You have gone from the ridiculous to the absurd. Almost all actors change their name to one they consider more appealing to the public, but what they do does not affect my life or my pocketbook.

How does Michelle Nunn's name affect you?

There are better ways for a woman to remind people who their father is than keeping their maiden name. Actually, I wonder what her husband thinks about her not taking his name when they married and what her two children's last names are. I would think she could have used hyphenated Mary Michelle Nunn-Martin to accomplish reminding people who her Dad is, as if the campaign ads she does on TV with her Dad aren't enough.
Using her maiden name to open doors and get preferential treatment because dear old Dad was a Senator, and a very good one that I voted for, is unethical in my playbook. Very similar to claiming to be a member of a minority, such as having Indian blood, or being from Kenya to get the advantage in college.

If your problem is nepotism, I agree with you. It's rampant in politics and media.

But her father isn't getting her a job - she's earning it.

But it's very telling, although not a bit surprising, that you have never ranted about Senator Lisa Martell...oh, I'm sorry...Murkowski

I swear, you conservatives are born hypocrites.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

 

[Meathead]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

Lot's of bills, but couldn't get them past the Senate. Obama has failed, get over it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

Then they can share the blame.

 

[TooTall]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

If the Repubs get the majority in the Senate, they might be able to pass some of the 282 bills that Reid has in his in basket and wait for Obama to veto them. Or, President dipshit could come to his senses and negotiate with the leadership of both parties and get some of what they both want. Clinton did exactly that with Gingrich and the result was a balanced budget. Just some hope and change there.

 

[TooTall]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

Then he will probably veto them and there goes his legacy down the tubes.

 

[TooTall]

Do you consider that ethical or opportunistic?

It's certainly opportunistic. Is taking an opportunity to remind people who your father is a bad thing?

I don't know how ethics enter into it at all.

It was definitely opportunistic for Marion Morrison to change his name to John Wayne. Was it a bad thing?

You have gone from the ridiculous to the absurd. Almost all actors change their name to one they consider more appealing to the public, but what they do does not affect my life or my pocketbook.

How does Michelle Nunn's name affect you?

There are better ways for a woman to remind people who their father is than keeping their maiden name. Actually, I wonder what her husband thinks about her not taking his name when they married and what her two children's last names are. I would think she could have used hyphenated Mary Michelle Nunn-Martin to accomplish reminding people who her Dad is, as if the campaign ads she does on TV with her Dad aren't enough.
Using her maiden name to open doors and get preferential treatment because dear old Dad was a Senator, and a very good one that I voted for, is unethical in my playbook. Very similar to claiming to be a member of a minority, such as having Indian blood, or being from Kenya to get the advantage in college.

If your problem is nepotism, I agree with you. It's rampant in politics and media.

But her father isn't getting her a job - she's earning it.

But it's very telling, although not a bit surprising, that you have never ranted about Senator Lisa Martell...oh, I'm sorry...Murkowski

I swear, you conservatives are born hypocrites.

I don't live in Alaska and wasn't aware of her nepotism. Shame on her!

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

Lot's of bills, but couldn't get them past the Senate. Obama has failed, get over it.

Failed at what?

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

If the Repubs get the majority in the Senate, they might be able to pass some of the 282 bills that Reid has in his in basket and wait for Obama to veto them. Or, President dipshit could come to his senses and negotiate with the leadership of both parties and get some of what they both want. Clinton did exactly that with Gingrich and the result was a balanced budget. Just some hope and change there.

Is that what Boehner and McConnell are doing? Are they negotiating with Obama to get things done? No. They could have been doing that all along.

And do you think Harry Reid isn't going to follow McConnell's lead on filibusters?

You reap what you sow.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

Then he will probably veto them and there goes his legacy down the tubes.

If he vetoes a bill to defund Planned Parenthood how would that tarnish his legacy?

On the contrary, it would only help to write the commercials for 2016 and the GOP War On Women.

 

[Meathead]

Obama must want a GOP controlled Congress.

That's actually one of the theories. He knows that Democratic control of the Senate means gridlock for the next two years, while a GOP Senate takes away every excuse for not doing anything for the American people - the GOP would own the mess, and wouldn't be able to lie about Harry Reid any longer.

Bullshit.

Obama would still own it.

Because we're already in gridlock the one thing that hasn't changed is Obama. And a GOP congress won't change that. If Obama vetoes everything he will own it.

Now, if the GOP Congress decides to send him good legislation, and Obama signs it, he can assure a lasting legacy of accomplishment. But I don't think he will.

What if they don't send him anything except culture war bullshit like defunding Planned Parenthood? No jobs bill, no infrastructure bill, no immigration bill?

Lot's of bills, but couldn't get them past the Senate. Obama has failed, get over it.

Failed at what?

Pretty much everything outside of "getting bin Laden" and the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[g5000]

The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader both ran editorials Sunday in support of the Democrat, who currently serves as Kentucky's Secretary of State.

The Courier-Journal in 2012: Endorsement | Barack Obama for president of the United States

We endorse Democratic incumbent Barack Obama for a second term and urge his re-election as president.

The Lexington Herald-Courier in 2008:Obama Right Man For the Job

Even if this country were not in dire need of a new direction, Sen. Barack Obama would make a better president than Sen. John McCain.

McCain's one advantage, experience, is of little use without judgment and temperament. On both counts, Obama has shown himself to be better qualified.

Since both papers endorsed Obama, is it really surprising they endorsed the Democratic candidate for US Senate?

 

[g5000]

Failed at what?

Pretty much everything outside of "getting bin Laden" and the Nobel Peace Prize.

And ObamaCare. And the 50 attempts at repeals.

And Dodd-Frank.

And the NDAA.