“Can Kentuckyians expect her to cast a tough vote on anything? Is she ever going to answer a tough question on anything? You want to be a U.S. Senator? If you can’t say — if you can’t find a way to stand behind your party’s president, you can disagree with him but can’t answer that basic question and come across looking ridiculous. I think she disqualified herself”
—–New “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” reacting with disgust to Kentucky’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes refusal to answer a reporter’s question regarding whether she voted for President Obama.
Well, she disqualified herself if voters believe senators should possess minimal levels of loyalty, candor, honesty, integrity or courage.
This latest fiasco for GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opponent comes on the heels of her staff and supporters being caught on video opining—Happily! Smugly! Proudly!— that she is lying about supporting the state’s coal industry in order to get elected. It takes a lot to make McConnell look good by comparison, but Grimes seems to have pulled off that amazing achievement with brio.
That’s something, I guess.
13 thoughts on “Ethics Quote of the Week: “Meet the Press” Host Chuck Todd”
From a party that cries “war on women” while it’s most popular guy is a serial sex offender and adulterer this level of lying should not surprise.
But…Sanctity of the ballot box!!!!
I’m confused, she should have been compelled to answer? Why? For one, she’s right about the sanctity of the ballot box, and two, she admitted to supporting Hillary which would seem to have de facto answered the question anyway.
Criticizing her for being disingenuous with regard to coal is valid; this, on the other hand, seems silly.
Idiotic comment, Neil. “Sanctity of the ballot box”—she’s a lifetime Democrat, and if Obama’s approval rating in Kentucky wasn’t about 30%, she would be screaming that she voted for Obama. The question wasn’t about Hillary, that answers nothing. So what if she voted for Obama? She couldn’t say, “Sure I did—I’m a Democrat and proud of it—what does that have to do with anything?” rather than act like she was asked “When did you stop beating your wife?” It’s cowardly, disloyal, insulting (to Obama and everyone else) and stupid. You think that doesn’t have a bearing on her qualifications? Good to know.
This question/issue raised its head in the recent debate between Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis for Texas Governor. (You may remember Wendy Davis as the state senator who filibustered proposed abortion legislation, rocketing to fame in her suit and pink tennis shoes, standing for 11 hours in a bid that ultimately failed.) In the debate, Abbott asked Davis if she regretted voting for Obama. Davis side-stepped (MSNBC wrote that she ‘skirted’ the issue, which is odd phrasing coming from MSNBC) the question by obfuscating that the governor’s race wasn’t about national politics but issues that have an impact on Texas and Texans. She took the same tack as Lundergan Grimes because Texas is a red state and Obama’s approval ratings here are in the tank. She has distanced herself from her support of Obama Administration policies which she embraced as a state senator. So, to me it seems like a relevant inquiry.
She’s right, the governor’s race wasn’t about national politics but issues that have an impact on Texas and Texans. Just because someone may vote for people from one party at the federal level of government doesn’t mean they should vote for those from the same party in state government or in local government as often the important issues are entirely different.
One thing I like about New Zealand politics is that the national parties usually stay out of local government. Instead of having candidates from the centre-right National Party and the centre-left Labour Party competing against each other with the National Party candidates winning all the time in my area as this is a conservative area, we had two groups called Vision & Voice and Residents & Ratepayers and a few independents as well. Most of these candidates would be on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but as they are not officially connected to any national party they spend there energies on local not national politics.
The race and any race is about whatever a voter thinks it’s about, including any candidate’s beliefs, judgment, loyalty and common sense, regarding any topic under the sun. Any question is fair game but that one especially so. She’s a Democrat, and Obama is the head of the Party. Does she stand with her Party and its head, or not? If not, why not? The President of the US, if he’s popular, campaigns for state candidates.
If she’s asked “What are your thoughts about the Alamo?” and refuses to answer, on the ground that the election isn’t about Texas’s independence from Mexico in the 1830s, I’m betting she loses about a million votes, and should.
I can’t tell what your comment about her filibuster states, but let me clarify:
Her filibuster was not successful. She broke enough filibuster rules that she should have been terminated and in fact her talk ended with enough time to vote. Unfortunately an anarchic mob of activists violated the sanctity of the legislature and practically rioted in the chamber. That event is what stopped the vote.
She should have said, “of course I did. He was my party’s candidate. Who would I have voted for? McCain? Romney? You know what? I voted for Kerry, too-and Al Gore.”
Of course. How would that hurt her in any way, with anyone who was likely to vote for her?
And her refusal is part and parcel with her stealth candidacy. She’s a Trojan Horse that ACTS like a Trojan Horse. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose.
Right now one of her campaign managers is saying “Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, and I will jump out of the horse…”
Hmmm…the Democrats seem to believe it’s “disqualifying”—http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SENATE_KENTUCKY_ADS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-14-15-33-13