Plan B Forum

Refuse to admit that you voted for the leader of your party for President in an interview with a major newspaper in your state...(even though everybody knows you did and expects you did)

And then double down on that by refusing to admit it again, a few days later in the only debate you'll have with your opponent:

Alison Lundergan Grimes repeats refusal to say whether she voted for President Obama

Washington (CNN) -- Alison Lundergan Grimes again refused to reveal whether she voted for President Barack Obama, dodging the question for the second time in a week Monday during the only debate of Kentucky's Senate race.

Grimes, the Democratic secretary of state who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in one of the nation's marquee races, cited the "matter of principle" of privacy at the ballot box, noting that she is the state's chief election officer.

"I'm not going to compromise a constitutional right provided here in Kentucky in order to curry favor on one or (an)other side or members of the media," she said during Monday night's debate.

The answer echoed one she gave the Louisville Courier-Journal's editorial board last week, which touched off days of criticism -- with NBC "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd saying that Grimes "disqualified herself," and McConnell's campaign immediately placing that comment in a new ad.[she wanted to avoid creating a campaign 'sound bite" of her admitting that she voted for Obama, so instead she got this one...]
It came after McConnell had already blasted Grimes for trying to hide her political allegiances in a state where Obama is deeply unpopular.

"My opponent has spent spent most of her time trying to deceive everybody about her own views," the five-term Republican said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/politics/ ... te-debate/

Senate Democrats surrender fight against GOP Leader McConnell

Senate Democrats announced Tuesday they won’t spend any more money on television in Kentucky, throwing in the towel on their fight to oust Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.

Most polls have shown the race slipping away from nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) for weeks in a contest long considered a top pickup opportunity for Democrats. But with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s (DSCC) decision, the party is shifting almost solely to defense in hopes of protecting its fragile six-seat majority.

“It’s ominous for the Grimes campaign,” said Al Cross, a longtime political commentator and journalism professor at the University of Kentucky. “This race has been slipping away from Democrats very slowly for about two months.”

The DSCC made its withdrawal after Grimes repeatedly stumbled over the question of whether she voted for President Obama. Her dodge last week drew sharp criticism, yet she doubled down during a debate Monday by declaring the “sanctity of the ballot box” a “matter of principle.”

Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said Grimes “disqualified herself” by keeping her vote a secret. The McConnell campaign quickly turned his and other media criticism into an ad.

On Tuesday, it appeared DSCC Chairman Michael Bennet (Colo.) and other party leaders agreed with that assessment.

“She has not performed particularly well in the last few weeks,” said David Axelrod, a former top Obama adviser, who told MSNBC that he wasn’t “terribly surprised” Democrats had pulled their ads.

“To effectively take the Fifth on whether you voted for the president or not doesn’t seem like an effective strategy to me,” he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/sen ... ntucky-ads

Yeah, I have to say I was pretty disappointed in Grimes for that dodge. She's a Democrat, and it's okay to own that, even in Kentucky -- hell, the governor is a Democrat who embraced Obamacare and was reelected. It's especially disappointing because I've seen a lot of the Grimes campaign over the summer and she is a really dynamic personality, pretty much the polar opposite of ol' Yertle there, in every respect.

The truly bewildering thing from a political standpoint, is that Grimes had several days between her editorial interview and her debate with McConnell to come up with a better answer, even after she screwed the pooch the first time...

And it should have been obvious to her from the media reaction that she needed to come up with something better...

And she didn't...(I'm sure that's why the DSCC pulled out)

And it really isn't all that difficult to come up with a better answer, even in a state (like Kentucky) where Obama's popularity is in the low 30s...

You could say, " Yes, I voted for President Obama, because I believe he had a better vision for working people, but I strongly disagree with him on XYZ..."

Or: " Yes, I voted for President Obama, but we have many differences, and I pledge first and foremost to represent the people of Kentucky, unlike my opponent who represents first and foremost the interests of Washington Lobbyists and Wall Street Bankers..."

Just off the top of my head I can think of at least half a dozen relatively easy politically acceptable ways she could have answered that question that would have avoided the fix she's gotten herself in to...

But instead of choosing any of those, Ms. Grimes, (to paraphrase the immortal words of former Texas Governor Claytie Williams after his defeat to Ann Richards... ):

Shot herself in the foot, reloaded, and fired again....

LJ, you ever think of becoming a campaign advisor?

Been there done that oldr...

Lord Jim wrote:Been there done that oldr...

Should the president get credit for the small improvement in the economy caused by the shell oil fracking boom when in my opinion he provided no support for it. The improvement in the economy is in spite of him not because of him, in my opinion.

Lord Jim wrote: And it really isn't all that difficult to come up with a better answer, even in a state (like Kentucky) where Obama's popularity is in the low 30s...

"When faced with a choice between President Obama and Mitt Romney, how could I possibly vote for a man who believes 47% of his fellow Americans are moochers and takers? I know Kentuckyians, and I know we're better than that; I know we work hard for what we've got, and I'm more interested in protecting that than kissing up to elite one-per-centers."

Sue U wrote:

Lord Jim wrote: And it really isn't all that difficult to come up with a better answer, even in a state (like Kentucky) where Obama's popularity is in the low 30s...

"When faced with a choice between President Obama and Mitt Romney, how could I possibly vote for a man who believes 47% of his fellow Americans are moochers and takers? I know Kentuckyians, and I know we're better than that; I know we work hard for what we've got, and I'm more interested in protecting that than kissing up to elite one-per-centers."

I didn’t vote for Romney either , but it was more what he didn’t say than what he did. If he had said something like I pledge on my honor that I will protect these social programs that have made us a humane first world country, I might have voted for him. I had doubts about the security of the future of these programs that he did not ease.

Should the president get credit for the small improvement in the economy caused by the shell oil fracking boom when in my opinion he provided no support for it.

He will certainly claim the credit, and has in fact already been doing so loudly and repeatedly for months, (and his partisan supporters are also happy to claim the credit for him as well.) just as he has been claiming credit for the drop in the budget deficit that was caused chiefly by the sequester, which he adamantly opposed. If he had been given his way on additional spending, the deficit would in fact be substantially higher today.

But I want to stress Lib, that Obama is hardly unique in taking credit for the positive affects of things that happen during his Presidency that he had nothing to do with, or even opposed. In fact I can't think of a single President, Republican or Democrat who hasn't done this as a matter of course.

And frankly there's a rough sort of fairness in that; Presidents also get blamed for things that go wrong on their watch that they had nothing to do with and/or no control over, so it really doesn't bother me that much when they want to crow about good things that happen that they had nothing to do with.

In any event it's SOP for Presidents; they all do it.

Lord Jim wrote:Been there done that oldr...

Would the biggest downside entail being around the kind of people that want to be politicians or be around politicians?