Skip to main content

It's always the men who are going after me in Kentucky.  Doesn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans.  Women need a better voice!
Jim Cauley:  "She's gonna have a tough row to hoe.  She doesn't fit the damn state. That's her problem. I don't think she fits the voters of the state of Kentucky."
Nathan Smith: "I'm in this to win it, and I don't believe Ashley Judd is in it to win it."
Oh this is great!  I'm going to win re-election!  I'm going to win re-election!  does a happy dance
Wait, they're talking about THIS Ashley Judd?

It's official:  The Kentucky Democratic Party is Republican-lite.  Amazing how scared they are of an Ashley Judd for U.S. Senate campaign yet no one is running for the U.S. Senate?

What kind of Democratic Party do we have in Kentucky anyway?  Oh wait, the best candidate it ever nominated for the U.S. Senate was this guy, Bruce Lunsford.  He once supported Ernie Fletcher.  Not cool man, not cool.

Yeah, what was Lunsford thinking?  Beats me.

Now Kentucky Democrats seem to be so determined to fear Ashley Judd yet being too wimpy to be able to nominate anyone of their own kind:

http://www.theatlantic.com/...

At a time when Democrats in Washington are having second thoughts about embracing Ashley Judd as their standard-bearer against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014, Kentucky Democrats are waving red flags about the actress, arguing that her candidacy plays into the GOP's strengths and tarnishes the party brand in the Bluegrass State.

"She's gonna have a tough row to hoe," said Jim Cauley, who ran Governor Steve Beshear's 2007 campaign and also worked on President Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. "She doesn't fit the damn state. That's her problem. I don't think she fits the voters of the state of Kentucky."

And here's Nathan Smith, apparently one of the top "Democratic" donors in Kentucky.  Wonder what he's REALLY thinking too.
Other Democrats in the state, including a top donor in Northern Kentucky, disagree. They argue she has not been in the state enough to mount a credible attack on McConnell, who will be ready for the fight. Karl Rove's super PAC American Crossroads attacked Judd with a web video earlier this year for living in Tennessee.

"I'm in this to win it, and I don't believe Ashley Judd is in it to win it," said Nathan Smith, a leading Kentucky Democratic donor, who is also the head of the Manufactured Housing Institute. Smith helped raise money for Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Beshear. He's hosted Hillary Rodham Clinton at his house. He said he called Judd about 10 days ago, prepared to give his advice to the actress, but hasn't heard back.

"If she was to call me tonight, I would give her some advice and I doubt that she'd be excited to come back for round two of that conversation. I don't care how many movies she's made." Smith said.

Apparently Smith also thinks Ashley Judd isn't going to talk to any one in Kentucky with her Senate campaign.  Please tell me this guy is joking.

"Maybe she can become a senator without talking to anybody from Kentucky," Smith said.

Top Democrats who are cool to Judd's candidacy say they'd like to see Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes get into the race. The daughter of a former state party chair, Grimes defeated her GOP challenger by a wide margin. State Democratic officials stop short of calling for a primary if Judd enters the race, but they give voice to a wider concern that McConnell will get whom he wants in Judd -- an opponent who can be tied to the president.

"Electing Ashley Judd gets a Republican Legislature elected. That's what I see at stake here. Your perspective is different if you're in New York or Los Angeles. They don't live here. We do. Judd's candidacy makes it seamlessly easy to Obama-ize this election," one Kentucky Democratic strategist said.

Um, Ashley Judd grew up in Kentucky and has been there many times.  These "Democratic" guys in Kentucky are such airheads.  They couldn't even win any House seats or U.S. Senate races in the past (except real Democrats like John Yarmuth) and now they're telling us Judd is hazardous?

To the Kentucky Democratic Party, you can't have it both ways!

Besides, I don't think they've done their research:

1)  It seems the Kentucky Democratic Party doesn't even known their own constituency.  Take a look at this New York Times article that points out some interesting observations of an Ashley Judd candidacy:

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Still, many residents said Ms. Judd’s character, which they admired, was more important than her politics.

“She may be a little too liberal for me,” said Janice Taylor, a 71-year-old retiree. But neither was she a fan of Mr. McConnell’s.

“I’ve got tired of him,” she said. “He’s always against everything.”

Perry Dalton, 67, who retired from the AK Steel plant in Ashland, said he was a Republican but liked Ms. Judd because she was not a typical politician.

“I know she wants to come back to help her state, her community, just from her heart,” said Mr. Dalton, holding the hand of a granddaughter before a ride on an electric indoor train at the Town Center mall. “I know she’s more liberal than me. But honesty is more important to me than anything.”

Joan Christian, 42, a hospital technician, said she previously voted for Mr. McConnell but would not rule out Ms. Judd even because of her current residence out of state.

“I think she’s as qualified as anyone,” Ms. Christian said. “She was an educated professional woman before she was an actress.”

2)  Ashley Judd is a certified ass kicker and someone who actually gives a damn and proves it.



Ok guys.  Let's give the Kentucky Democratic Party hell:

Phone:  (502) 695-4828
E-mail:  http://kydemocrat.com/...

Poll

How crazy are Jim Cauley, Nathan Smith and the Kentucky Democratic Party?

10%7 votes
15%10 votes
4%3 votes
3%2 votes
12%8 votes
53%34 votes

| 64 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Eh, I don't think that's 100% fair to say that (6+ / 0-)

    these guys aren't Democrats because they aren't sure about Judd's candidacy.  Look, I like the idea of Judd running but there are legit concerns.  She needs to move back to Kentucky ASAP if she wants to run and the longer she waits, the more it hurts her.  Yes, people like her for who she is but when the election time gets closer and it gets more and more about the issues, you can't assume that she can still win based on who she is.  I like the fact that people in Kentucky can overlook what she believes and respect her for who she is and trust her for her honesty but all that can change over 18 months.  Also, we should keep Grimes into consideration, just in case Judd doesn't want to do it or if she screws up in the primary and campaign promise.  David Nir pointed out that the Kentucky Democrats don't just have this race riding on Judd but the whole state legislator as well:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I like and appreciate your ongoing support for Judd but don't put all your eggs in one basket.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 05:41:06 PM PDT

    •  None of those other people can win. (4+ / 0-)

      What would their appeal be?  That they can deliver all of McC's conservatism without the stench of Republicanism?  That's not much of an appeal.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:07:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ashley Judd has until the fall to move back (5+ / 0-)

      I don't think Judd has anything to worry about that.

      But I think you're misreading my diary.  It's not about the Kentucky Democratic Party not supporting or supporting Ashley Judd.  It's about the reasons they are hesitant to support her.  They're the lamest reasons I've ever heard from a Democratic Party and it says volumes of how fired up the base is based on previous political campaigns (exceptions of course being Steve Beshear's gubernatorial and John Yarmuth's Congressional campaigns.

      Look at the example of Bruce Lunsford.  He was wishy-washy yet he could have almost beaten Mitch McConnell for re-election in 2008.  However, he didn't fire up the base enough and his views weren't entirely what most Democrats fight for.  He's been a Democrat for a long time but how he stands on the issues is questionable.

      I'm not assuming the Kentucky Democratic Party is anything.  I just want them to get off their asses and fired up.

      •  Fair enough. (3+ / 0-)

        Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

        by poopdogcomedy on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:14:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "and has been there many times" (0+ / 0-)

        The carpetbagger tag will be one of the most significant challenges to the Judd candidacy. I trust she will have a better answer than "I grew up in Kentucky and have been here many times".

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:22:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course Judd does (0+ / 0-)

          I mean, she's done a lot more in one year of her life in world affairs than Mitch McConnell has done in five years of his would-be Senate career.

        •  Goes both ways (0+ / 0-)

          If you're going to attack Judd for her residence then the exact same bullshit can be brought up about Mitch McChinless.  After all he's been in DC for how many decades?  How much time does he actually spend in Kentucky in relation to Judd?  Does he go to UK games for example?  

          Ask the same question of McChinless and you'll get the same or a very similar answer.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:00:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  DisNoir - a false equivalence (0+ / 0-)

            McConnell is in DC representing the state of KY in the Senate and has additional duties as Minority Leader. He does have a residence in KY and is there frequently. Judd lives in TN. I think Judd is an attractive candidate and went back to the Harvard Kennedy School and earned a MPA in 2010, so she is serious and there are lots of good issues to pursue regarding McConnell. However, the carpetbagger issue is real, and there is no equivalence regarding McConnell.  

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:57:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Judd doesn't have much to worry about (0+ / 0-)

              I'm really not sure what the Kentucky Democrats are complaining about or being skeptical about regarding Judd's residency issues.  She has until the fall to establish residency.  It's as if we're talking about Judd bringing millions of dollars of clothes and other property of hers to Kentucky when she could probably move within a month.  

              Here's the residency requirements for running for office.  U.S. Senate requirements are pretty lax in Kentucky:

              http://www.sos.ky.gov/...

              •  The nuts and bolts aren't important to people (0+ / 0-)

                Sure, she will fulfill the residency requirements but it leaves her open to attacks of "other" and given everything else it isn't something a candidacy can afford.

                Hillary chose to run in New York and Al Franken had the fortune of running in a state that leans to his party during a strongly Democratic year. The issue hurt Bob Kerrey last year and he had won statewide multiple times in Nebraska.

                Residency issues were also a problem for Dick Lugar in his primary  with Richard Mourdock and for the Republican nominee against Travis Childers in Mississippi during 2008. The issue didn't hurt Dan Coats in 2010 because his issue positions are a good fit for his state and he was running in 2010.

                "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:20:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ok but this is March 2013 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus

                  I think talking about the residency requirements is way too early in the picture for things to happen.  Even Al Franken was criticized for not living in Minnesota for a number of years prior to running for the U.S. Senate in 2008 and somehow and he got elected, with a small margin.  However, that was because folks were already used to Norm Coleman.  Now, Al Franken should easily win re-election.

                  You're mentioning residency was a problem for Dick Lugar.  Actually, the problem was, he didn't fight back and he also was viewed by many as entrenched too much in Washington.  He didn't explain himself well.  Lugar himself isn't a partisan Republican.  He's diplomatic, well respected and not hated by people, except those Tea Party Republicans like Richard Mourdock (I truly believe Mourdock couldn't stand Lugar).

                  I think you're underestimating just how much of a fighter Ashley Judd is.  I'm really not sure if you're studying her character in the videos but she's consistent.  She exemplifies everything that have many Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren strong progressive fighters who don't back down.

                  And I'm still waiting for real evidence from others who continue to tell me there's another Democratic candidate out there who's better than Judd for the U.S. Senate race.  What would that person do to fire up the base?  What could that person do that would make real change in the state?

                  Would that person be a Democrat by-name-only or a Democrat that actually has an authentic demeanor and isn't always working on talking points?  You could argue a conservative Democrat might be better for Kentucky but the bottom line is this:

                  Will this Democratic U.S. Senate candidate actually keep the communication line open to constituents so they can actually be represented or is the candidate going to be too entrenched in the Washington system?  I see Democrats who look like drones in Congress and you often wonder why they got elected in the first place.

  •  Very Off Diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, Kentucky Kid

    It is a legitimate issue that she hasn't lived in the state for years.  She is also way more liberal than the state at large.  I think her supporters are the flip side of the people who insisted Christine O'Donnell was a better candidate than Michael Castle in Delaware; they wanted so badly to elect someone in line with their beliefs that they are ignoring all history and evidence that its not a good idea.  

    Getting McTurtle out of the Senate is too big an opportunity to waste, don't put in a candidate who Mitch can make the race about rather than his own record.

    Always remember, people suck.

    by skidrow on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 05:46:57 PM PDT

    •  Republicans don't take voters as they are. (4+ / 0-)

      They try to get voters to change.  Why don't we?

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:06:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you read the NY Times article? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Larsstephens

      I mentioned this in the diary.  If you want to say NY Times' data and information is inaccurate or short-sighted, by all means take a shot.

      •  That's a Random Opinionist (0+ / 0-)

        Just because the writer works for NYT doesn't make his/her opinion more valid than yours or mine.  Those man on the street interviews dont mean much this far ahead of an election.  Why give Mitch the opportunity to make the race about his opponent?  Its going to likely end up the mirror image of Harry Reid's race with Sharon Angle with the ideologies reversed.  It's almost a criminal waste to blow this race with the wrong candidate like we did last time.

        Always remember, people suck.

        by skidrow on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:51:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wait, you lost me there (0+ / 0-)

          You're saying the street interviews don't mean much?  You do realize that when reporters interview people, they don't just interview a few.  They interview plenty more than that.  I don't think three responses is all that was given.  I mean, this is the NY Times, right?  They are a diligent newspaper, right?  And you also read the article, right?  It doesn't give a biased point of view.  There are arguments on the other side of the coin.  That's what makes good journalism.

          Your response is so general and without any specifics that I have a hard time really being convinced from anything.  Until you offer me a bit more insight, I'm just going to treat it with a grain of salt.

          And so the point being, going back to my diary:  Why is the Kentucky Democratic Party establishment STILL not running a candidate of their own?

          Why?  Ashley Judd taking air waves?  OH I'M SO SCARED.

          Seriously.

  •  As a native of Kentucky, I can say this--if (13+ / 0-)

    Ashley Judd runs, and we can get younger voters to the polls, I believe she can win.

    The younger people here want decent jobs--in many parts of the state, young people have to either move to the cities, or leave the state in order to find work. Coal's time is coming to an end--gas will be the next big thing in fossil fuels. And more than a few of us realize that climate change is occurring--and know the role coal has helped to play in bringing that about. Kentucky's economy is deeply dependent on coal--we really have little choice but to diversify the economy. Pretending otherwise--like some folks do--or believing we can just kick the can down the road, is pure stupidity.

    Also, more than a few of us are sick and tired of the self-righteous hatefulness we have seen out of the older crowd--republican and democratic alike. Gay-bashing, woman hating, and poor-people hating just don't cut it with many of us--especially the ones who work two jobs, but still need food stamps in order to eat. A lot of people here are sick of self-righteous hypocrites who like to stick their noses up in other people's business, while doing things 10 times worse than the people they are bad-mouthing. A lot of politicians in Kentucky certainly come across that way...

    And then, last of all, is the corruption issues in this state. Cronyism and abuses of power are rampant in the local governments in many parts of the state, especially the rural counties.

    If she runs, progressives in this state will have our work cut out for us! But remember, we also sent people like Carl D. Perkins to congress in the past--there is, and has always been, a vein of liberalism here. The trick is to figure out how to tap into it.

  •  bland didn't beat rand.aj stronger.mitch/ripe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Larsstephens

    Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

    by renzo capetti on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:01:24 PM PDT

  •  I think she's a legitimate Hail Mary option. (9+ / 0-)

    I live in a congressional district that's kind of like Kentucky.  It's pointless running a conservative Democrat who "better reflects" the district/state.  Voters have no reason to vote for an ersatz conservative when they can vote Republican, and if by chance (say, because of a particular animus towards the Republican) they choose the conservadem, well, we have a conservadem pissing into the tent and damaging our brand nationally.  It's much better to run an actual liberal, who at least permits us to define ourselves better for a long-term struggle and on the odd chance that she wins, would be an actual asset to our representation in government.  

    Part of me is insulted to see Ashley Judd run for Senate, but that's not a legitimate reaction since I don't recall feeling insulted when Al Franken ran.  The softest part of Republican support is women, and I think it would be malpractice not to give Judd a try especially when you consider the low political and human quality of what she's arrayed against in the Kentucky Democratic party.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:05:26 PM PDT

    •  all but one state executive officer is a Democrat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skidrow

      in Kentucky.  It's not pointless to run a conservative Democrat who reflects the state.  That's exactly the kind of person who could beat McConnell.  If we could hold him to 53% in 2008 with Lunsford, we can beat him with a popular Kentucky Democrat.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:32:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it's pointless to *have* such a Senator (0+ / 0-)

        Look at how our conservative Democratic senators have damaged us, and the country.  McCaskill, who took $100B out of the stimulus just for fun.  Baucus and Conrad, who gutted health care reform.  Manchin and Landrieu, who make sure our party stands for continued environmental carnage.  

        As for "we have statewide Democrats," we know that people in Republican states will vote Democratic for state offices, and vice versa.  Utah and Kentucky have their mirror images in NJ and, um, I'm sure there's another :)  That doesn't make them any more KY any more likely to consider a Democrat for Senate any more than NJ would consider a Republican, absent a big reorientation via a new kind of candidacy.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:43:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Without McCaskill, Baucus, Manchin, and Landrieu (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skidrow, Larsstephens

          we're in the minority.  I don't want you making our recruitment decisions.

          And Utah has no Democrats I'm aware of in state exec. offices.  In Kentucky all but one of the offices is filled with a Democrat.  They are not similar states.  And unlike New Jersey and Utah, 3 of the last 4 senate elections in Kentucky have been won with 53% of the vote or less.  It is a competitive state for moderate-conservative Democrats.

          Not liberals like Judd.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:52:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  excuse me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens

            we'd have 51 senators, but I'm sure you'd purge Mark Pryor and others too.

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:53:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think a liberal could win in Kentucky--if they (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GAS, Shippo1776

            tap into the right issues.

            A liberal candidate in Kentucky would need to come to the voters with a plan to bring jobs and new industry to the state--especially in eastern Kentucky. Many people think that if you oppose Big Coal you'll lose the votes in the eastern counties. That is because I think people don't realize that the people in those counties only support the coal business because they see no other alternative for employment. They don't like the coal business, truthfully--they are resigned to it.  They also see the way coal has devastated the environment, up close and personal. They see the filthy, undrinkable water coming out of their wells, the babies born with birth defects in places like Letcher County, and the health problems that affect other people. Almost everybody in eastern Kentucky has a relative who has died in the mines in an accident, or a relative who has died of black lung. If a liberal could come to eastern Kentucky with a workable alternative to coal, I think he or she would sway more voters than you think.

            The whole state benefits from the tax revenue generated by the coal industry--and to tell the truth, a lot of people in eastern Kentucky kind of resent the fact that they help to generate a lot of money for the state, but at the same time, feel they see less benefit from that money than people in places like Lexington and Louisville do. A liberal candidate might tell the voters in eastern Kentucky that they would like to see more of the revenue they generate reinvested back into the region, instead of being sent off somewhere else.

            There are a good many people here who are conservative on social issues--but the "anti-poor people" rhetoric coming out of the GOP galls a lot of people here. There are a good many folks dependent upon public assistance. A liberal candidate would need to take their opponent to the woodshed on this issue.  

  •  This guy Jim Cauuley ran Obama's campaign... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tonyahky, bkamr, GAS, quixotic, Larsstephens

    ...for Senate in 2004.

    What he's saying seems to be that Kentucky is too misogynistic to consider a woman.  Perhaps he is right.  But I think we'll be all pleasantly surprised.  I will donate to her campaign as soon as she declares.

    And things may be stirring in parts of Kentucky;

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:06:52 PM PDT

    •  Remember, we have already had a woman as (4+ / 0-)

      governor--remember Martha Layne Collins?

      •  a woman named Alison Lundergan Grimes (4+ / 0-)

        is Secretary of State and may be considering running against McConnell.  She would be the most formidable candidate we could have.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:28:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know if she is the most formidible (4+ / 0-)

          opponent for McConnell--but she would also be a good choice. It may even be beneficial to her candidacy if all the attention is focused on Judd for the next several months. I have not paid as much attention to Grimes, but I will examine her more closely.

          I would be equally happy to see Judd run against Rand Paul at some point. We need all the good Dem candidates we can get in Kentucky.

        •  Then let her throw her hat in the ring... (4+ / 0-)

          against Judd and let the voters decide.

          Other parties call that sort of thing a "primary."
          I know--It's scary to mention such things in democratic circles.

          •  I'm hoping she does (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky Kid, madmojo

            supposedly she's waiting until the end of the legislative session to announce her intentions.  She'd crush Judd in a primary.  Kentucky has too many conservative Democratic voters for Judd to win a seriously contested primary.

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:05:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So it's YOU who doesn't like her liberal... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shockwave

              views?

              I knew it, I knew this "concern" about her electability was mostly hot air from right-wing democrats who object to her policies.

              lmao...

              •  where did I say that? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shockwave

                I live in Oregon and am a progressive Democrat.  I just want someone in Kentucky who can actually beat McConnell.  A progressive Democrat cannot.

                ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:24:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  .... (0+ / 0-)
                   I'm hoping she does (0+ / 0-)

                  supposedly she's waiting until the end of the legislative session to announce her intentions.  She'd crush Judd in a primary.  Kentucky has too many conservative Democratic voters for Judd to win a seriously contested primary.

                  You don't like Judd's liberalism, you're just disguising your opinion behind "concern" over her electability.
                  You oppose her, that's clear from the quote.
                  •  yes, I oppose Judd being our nominee. (0+ / 0-)

                    That doesn't mean I disagree with her views necessarily.

                    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                    by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:29:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Stop putting words in his mouth. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    James Allen, Kentucky Kid

                    He's simply stating what he thinks about the political makeup of Kentucky, and as someone who's visited the state many times, I can tell you that he's probably right.  By all means, let's support Judd.  However, don't be surprised if McConnell gets around 70% in the general election.  Because besides Louisville and Lexington, I can't forsee many other places in the state voting for her.  I really hope I'm wrong though, because she's an amazing woman.  

                    •  I didn't put words in his mouth... (0+ / 0-)

                      I reproduced his quote in its entirety to prove his claim(of support for her liberal views) false.

                      I've made my case. Anyone still on the fence is beyond my capabilities.

                      G'night.

                    •  Btw, I notice neither you nor J.A. recced... (0+ / 0-)

                      this diary.

                      Aren't you upset about these attacks on Judd's opinions, which you both support?

                      •  I don't rec every diary I read. (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm very selective on what I do rec.  It has to be one of my pet causes.  This isn't really one of them.  Sorry, but I can't be pissed off all the time about everything under the sun.  Being bipolar, it wouldn't end well for me.

                      •  I have not recced this diary (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        madmojo

                        or done a lot of things in my life.  Things I have done in my life:

                        worked for unions and been proud of my family's labor heritage going back nearly a century.

                        canvassed for marriage equality as part of the multi-year effort that will finally put it on the ballot next year.

                        canvassed & organized for the unfortunately unsuccessful campaign to retain Portland's voter -owned elections.

                        voted against every restriction on abortion that has been on the ballot here, and been proud that my state is the only state without a single restriction on abortion on the books.

                        You can call my views "ick" because I want to be practical and have a Democratic nominee who can win the race, but I would ask you to please not question my views and turn this into an ad hominem when we should be discussing the KY-Sen race.

                        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                        by James Allen on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:00:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                          have a good night

                        •  I myself believe you (0+ / 0-)

                          I think this diary is all about arguments more than it is questioning people's views.  Certain people here writing comments seem to keep thinking I'm making smears on the Democrats who are making these arguments about Ashley Judd.

                          I'm really challenging the Kentucky Democratic Party here because as Democrats, they should know better than to make fact-free arguments (articles supported don't give any evidence of voters the KY Democrats in them interview or any real bit of evidence on the KY Democrats side).  What makes us Democrats vs. Republicans besides our views?

                          I say the Democratic Party is about facts.  We Kossacks always say, "Reality has a liberal bias."

                          So let's have the Kentucky Democratic Party prove to the rest of the Democrats in America they understand their own base.

                          I'm not attacking their Democratic views.  Being a Democrat is more than just being liberal.  Hell, the Green Party has a lot of similar progressive views but the problem Green Party people have is that they aren't inclusive.  Doesn't mean I disagree with their views on the issues but the party is just not that inclusive.  It also doesn't point out enough facts and everything I hear from Greens is always "The Democrats are running this country" and the "two party dictatorship."  I don't see enough productive, objective insight.

                          That's why I always question.  I never insult.  This is a diary and an analysis piece, not a smear campaign.

                          •  It's interesting how non-residents of a state (0+ / 0-)

                            are sure they know which candidates will or won't be supported.

                            Kentuckians will vote for the candidate they want, whether for glamour (like Arnold) or because of her positions or because they are tired of The Turtle or some other reason.

                            Their choice. Although the Dem party there sounds like losers.

                            Oh, and John McCain's forebears are not rooted in Arizona, and any number of other politicians move to get elected.

                            I think Ashley Judd can do well if the men stop being obstacles and get out of her way.

                            *Are we humans or are we dancers?* Annie Lennox (thx Words In Action & OPOL)

                            by glorificus on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 11:25:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with Jim Cauley (4+ / 0-)

      All he talks about is winning and not enough about facts.  He acts just like the Republicans in their lame analysis of who Ashley Judd really is an what she actually has accomplished.  

      Did Cauley even cite a single accomplishment Ashley Judd made for his argument?  No.  Did he give an objective assessment?  No.

      Therefore, I think Cauley needs to spend more time firing the Democratic base up for 2014 for Democratic candidates than getting worried about Ashley Judd.  I mean, if he worked for Obama (who brought us the amazing Elizabeth Warren), why is he all of a sudden getting flipped out about Judd?  He hasn't given one piece of credible evidence.

  •  Howard Fineman warns Rs have 'nekkid' pics of her (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tonyahky

    He was a guest on the Chris Matthews show the other day along with Alex Wagner, and his 'serious' point was that the Obama admin. ITSELF didn't want Ashley Judd to run because of all the history Rs can show about Ashley being a HOLLYWOOD LIBERAL, including 'nekkid' (he actually said 'nekkid' because he was too embarrassed to say 'nude' or 'naked') photos of her from her acting roles. I thought Alex was going to jump through the screen and punch him.

    Clearly, this is the most 'serious' problem she has in running for Congress!

    "We are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." - future President Paul Ryan.

    by Fordmandalay on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:08:18 PM PDT

    •  as opposed to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RedPrairie, JL, Shippo1776, claytonben

      Scott Brown or Arnold Schwarzanegger?

      Your end of the Constitution is sinking.

      by happymisanthropy on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:35:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those nekkid photos (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fordmandalay

      will only swell her electability among younger male voters.

      If the GOP decides to go the misogynist they might find it backfiring.  Judd is a very attractive woman nekkid and otherwise.  Given the choice between a senator who they have seen nekkid and one who they can't stand the sight of clothed, I suspect quite a few will go with the photos.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:10:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah but the GOP's credibility is down the toilet (0+ / 0-)

        The sooner Judd, if she runs and goes after the comments while being productive in building her base, the GOP will be pretty much out of ideas.

        I don't think the naked photos will be a determining factor of the election.  I think voters of Kentucky may want to judge things more on what issues mean best for them.

        And if the GOP promotes ads on naked photos and videos, it's only going to prove their desperation over ideas and Judd's campaign could point this out.

  •  Lives in Marsha Blackburn's Tennessee (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, tonyahky

    District and I wonder why she hasn't or won't take on Marsha.  That being said, I'd love to hear her in the Senate up against Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.  

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:29:21 PM PDT

  •  They're just "concerned"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    Yea, that's it.

    •  Why are they concerned? (0+ / 0-)

      It's only March 2013 and the Democrats have loads of time to mount candidates.  What are they really worried about?

      •  They probably don't like her progressive... (0+ / 0-)

        policy stances and are trying to stop her via of a scummy whisper campaign.

        That's my guess.

          •  The smears are in the comment section... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NativeSonKY

            of this very diary.

            •  Yeah quite a few (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tonyahky, dclawyer06

              too many for my comfort.

            •  Smears? (0+ / 0-)

              "Are they REALLY Democrats?"

              "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

              by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 05:37:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's a question (0+ / 0-)

                And no, it's not a smear.  The point being, what makes a Democratic Party a Democratic Party?

                In my view, it's about being inclusive and thinking forward, rather backward which the GOP tends to do all the time.

                I've always argued that if you're a Democrat, please prove you are so aside from simply being registered in the party.

                And in a broader perspective, Democrats have more facts on their side than Republicans do.  We Kossacks have always argued that.

                So if that's the case, why is it the Democratic Party, establishment and others continue to not cite any evidence to support their arguments.  The NY Times article that I cited in this diary cites evidence and so should the KY Democratic Party.

                I mean, when I'm a Democrat, there are reasons why I am such:  I am big on knowledge and backing up my opinion with real world, factual information.  I also recognize that I don't view one state as being a foreign country.  Kentucky may be a different state than California, where I live in, but just because the people of KY have different attitudes and political views, doesn't mean they are aliens.

                Half of my mother's side of the family is conservative, staunchly so.  They're from Utah, an even more conservative state than Kentucky and one where being a progressive Democrat is like Ralph Nader winning California in a presidential election.  Even though I've had arguments with my mother (who is a moderate conservative) and others in her family (who are conservative and right wing), if someone goes up to them and doesn't become a robot Democrat and asks open-ended, non-offensive questions, they feel more comfortable with that.

                If we're going to be the Democratic Party, we need to do more than just simply say:  "She's too liberal.  She can't win the state."

                I don't think Lyndon Johnson ever helped John F. Kennedy win Southern states by being liberal.  Johnson's the most powerful liberal Democrat in history in Congress.  How do you think he was able to win over the South, even being a resident of Texas?

                •  I took it rhetorically (0+ / 0-)

                  There is similar sentiment throughout the diary and the comments.

                  "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                  by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:06:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  That could work to hurt them if to many people (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tonyahky, Larsstephens, dclawyer06

            see that as just another attack on a woman, that war on woman thing didn't work out for them to well.

        •  Yeah, well, great Democrats we got here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dclawyer06

          Get rid of these DLC types.  Need REAL Democrats here.

          •  The Democratic nominee for president (0+ / 0-)

            Has done no better than 41% of the vote in each of the last four presidential elections. You need a conservative Democrat to win Kentucky.

            "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

            by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 05:30:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Democratic nominees for president (0+ / 0-)

              WERE conservative Democrats.

              And yet they couldn't muster more than 41% in the last 4 presidential elections.  Even Gore ran away from his more liberal side when he ran and he didn't campaign at all in KY or TN for that matter and he IS from TN.  He only became a real progressive well after he lost.  Kerry was the most liberal of the 4 and he had to explain why he was for the war before being against it.  

              If conservative Democrats could win in Kentucky the delegation to DC would have more than one Democrat.  It seems that running someone who is slightly better than a steaming pile of shit and telling the people of KY that they may be like that steaming pile of shit but taste a bit better isn't cutting it in KY.  Maybe people in KY WANT someone who is a bit different, with different ideas and different plans than the GOP crap and the bland not quite GOP crap they're fed on a continual basis.

              The only way we will ever know is to try and it seems many both here and in KY want to continue feeding the people of KY the same type of shit they're used to.

              The bottom line is we were not going to win this seat anyway.  McChinless has huge coffers and as the head of the party in the Senate will have all the guns blazing in support of him.  The answer isn't to run some bland alternative of him who will simply be cannon fodder.  The answer is to go for broke.  

              Judd is young, charismatic, can help self fund, has wealthy backers and is from Kentucky.  She can excite the younger crowds, women and minorities (granted there probably aren't many in KY).  She can change the voting demographics in the state and carry other Democrats to victory as well.  Alot of the criticism of her is pure bullshit.  Not a state resident?  When the fuck has McChinless lived in Kentucky?  How long has he been in DC again?  Oh she posed nekkid for some films.  Well she looked fucking smoking hot doing it too.  Can you say the same for Centerfold Scotty or Ahhnold?  Can you picture Mitch nekkid?  Would you want to?  She's against coal.  Well she's got an alternate vision for the state than the shit they've been fed for over a century.  Maybe the people would like to hear it.    

              And if she gets trounced by McChinless and the Dems lose state wide?  Big fucking deal.  They've been doing a bang up job of losing without her.  

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:31:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That makes no sense at all (0+ / 0-)

              We're dealing with the U.S. Senate, not the Presidency.  Ashley Judd is running for the Senate, not for president.  Therefore, she isn't governing the state.

              Also, no Demoratic nominee for president has actually campaigned in the state.

              When was the last time John Kerry and Barack Obama did much campaigning in Kentucky?  Obama didn't make a single trip to the state as a candidate in 2008 when he was nominated and didn't visit it even once in 2012.

              I don't think we're in a position to judge how well a Democratic nominee for president did in a state unless he/she has campaigned there.

              •  Those people that campaigned there and won (0+ / 0-)

                Are conservative Democrats. The presidential numbers are indicitive of how the national brand performs in a given state. The national Democratic brand is more liberal than can be competitive in Kentucky and Ashley Judd is to the left of that.

                "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:54:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ok but you need to re-read my comment (0+ / 0-)

                  Again, Obama did not campaign in Kentucky.

                  This is like saying I can't get people to buy my company's new brand of beer but that I actually haven't gone around to selling it to people or promoting it on my website.

                  •  I understand what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

                    I just disagree. Look, if nobody else runs I have no problem with Ashley Judd having a go. I just hope her interest doesn't push someone more viable from running like Secretary Grimes.

                    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                    by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:30:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What's there to disagree about? (0+ / 0-)

                      The point is, when has the national Democratic Party really focused on Kentucky?  Only with races it knows it can win.  That's only when the national DP pitches in.  They don't want to put money in races that are out of their reach so it doesn't matter who runs so long as they are winning or have potential to win.  Seriously, I thought we were all about advancing Democratic causes in addition to winning?

                      So where has the outreach been in Kentucky?  Only at the state Democratic level it seems and I can understand why the Democratic Party in the state is getting a bit worried about an Ashley Judd candidacy.  But the more time they worry, the less they mount a candidate of their own, a strong enough alternative to Judd.  So far, that hasn't happened.  Also, no bit of evidence has been proven to me as of yet other than what these Democratic skeptics have told me.  People can give me as much skepticism as they want but I'm not going to be convinced out of anything if no one can prove to me anything.  So far, none of the Democrats cited in this article have given me one iota of evidence.  NONE.  It's all worries but worries don't equal facts.  I'd like to see real people in Kentucky all over the state on video talk about Ashley Judd.  Until that happens, I'm going to assume these Democrats in Kentucky are really going to shoot themselves in the foot over a really missed opportunity if they don't get behind a Democratic candidate soon enough or they can't mount a Democratic candidate of their own.

                      I mean, really, why are we Democrats anyway?  I'm not in the Democratic Party just to win elections.  I want to make a difference but I also want to believe that Democrats go beyond just simply being self-centered and start to actually do the checks and balances and look at facts, rather than the GOP who seem hell bent on power and keeping their reputation on the line.  Is it such a big deal that we target states like Georgia, Missouri and others?  Of course!  Why?  We build the party.  We should also assess what residents of those "red" states are concerned about and and tie in our Democratic values in a practical way that can address what residents are looking for.  This is the same kind of process Howard Dean advocated when he ran in 2004.  Dean was all about electing Democrats everywhere, not just simply a certain number of areas.

                      We don't just win, we make a difference.  If people in Kentucky can't be convinced Ashley Judd will make a difference, then that's what she'll need to deal with.  Political campaigns are all about communication and one false move, it creates a problem for the candidate because of You Tube and other technologies.

                      What's so amazing is that Ashley Judd hasn't officially run yet and all the Kentucky Democratic Party seems to be talking about is why they are skeptical about Ashley Judd.  Judd this, Judd that, Judd this, Judd that?  Ok guys, I'm waiting for you to get off your frickin high horse and promote someone of your own.  Enough already!  She hasn't even officially announced!

                      So the point of my diary is, what makes the Kentucky Democratic Party a party of Democrats?  Why are they REALLY Democrats?  Every Democratic Party differs by state to state depending on the issues citizens are concerned about.  However, if the issues of each citizen are universal in all 50 states, then all we need to worry about is communicating the appropriate way, the more inviting, less "you don't agree with me, I don't care."

                      Goodness, Judd goes into African countries and other areas around the world and meets people who don't look at all into her politics.  They see her as someone who is actually caring and giving a damn.  The NY Times article that I pointed out confirms just that.  I just wish the Kentucky Democratic Party would stop whining and start firing up their base over a candidate, Ashley Judd or not.  

        •  Her stances are ideal for the coasts (0+ / 0-)

          They don't sell in the middle of the country. Certainly not statewide.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 05:33:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stances... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dclawyer06

            ...But as the NY Times article states in evidence (unless you look at NY Times as propaganda), voters in KY, while not necessarily agreeing with Judd in her views, like her honesty.

            So in other words, Judd must be authentic, not a typical politician like Mitch McConnell.

            Basically put, voters of KY, at least from what the NY Times article states, are disillusioned by McConnell.

            •  Anecdotes are not representative of public opinion (0+ / 0-)

              Besides, this is before most people have any idea about where she stands on numerous issues.

              "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

              by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:51:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Public opinion? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dclawyer06

                What do you mean by that?  Are you saying the interviews weren't actually conducted?  I thought when reporters were interviewing people, they were done in public.  

                The NY Times article cites opinions from folks in KY.  Did you interpret them as something else?  Or did you interpret the quotes from KY constituents as something coming completely out of the NY Times mind?

                I'm still trying to see where you're going with this.  I'm not suggesting that the NY Times article is representative of the entire state.  Only certain people were interviewed, not the entire state.  

                However, it does provide a bit of insight to think about.  This isn't about politics but about character and approach.

                •  It isn't a scientific poll (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm sure they found people supportive just as you can probably find more than a few righties in Milwaukee or New Orleans. Nobody voted for Nixon in certain communities against McGovern.

                  "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                  by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:26:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok but where's your evidence then? (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't think you're in a position to critique the NY Times's data just because they don't cite exactly where they got their data from.  Would a video have helped?

                    Ok.  The Nixon and McGovern campaigns were back in the early 1970's.  We're in the 21st century now, not the 1970's.

  •  They don't know how hard Ashley (5+ / 0-)

    is going to kick their asses! And I AM a Kentucky Democrat, although I'm only 53 years old and was raised in the blue spot in KY, Lexington. I hear all these DemLites talking about Ashley and how she's shown too much skin in the flicks to be considered "pure" enough for a politician. To which I ALWAYS answer, you don't really think there is ANYBODY "pure" in politics, do ya?

    I'd LOVE to see her run, and I'd vote for her without hesitation. And I agree with your assessment of the Democratic party in KY - they are a bunch of weak-kneed half-steppin' excuses for a Democrat, and I want Kennedy Dems to make a big comeback!

    Peace!

  •  It's early in the primary cycle. (0+ / 0-)

    These kinds of attacks are normal and to be expected at this point.  

    •  True (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo

      But again, I always hear little evidence from those cynics in relationship to examining Ashley Judd's experience and credentials.  Either they really don't have time to research or they simply look at everything in their own prism all the time.

  •  The base isn't big enough in Kentucky (0+ / 0-)

    The attacks on people in these comments pointing out the obvious is not productive.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 05:21:08 AM PDT

    •  The obvious? (0+ / 0-)

      What is the obvious?  You're losing me here.

      •  She is obviously too extreme for Kentucky (0+ / 0-)

        Hollywood liberal, anti-coal in a pro-coal state, highly vulnerable to carpetbagging attacks and a litany of provocative statements. If she was from Oregon or Washington she might have a chance.

        "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

        by conspiracy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:03:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's such a general statement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus

          I've already posted a number of diaries on this and to be honest, being extreme liberal is too much of a label and really doesn't give me any more insight than I already know.

          And I believe Ashley Judd fights back.  You should look back at the videos again and see how much of tough woman Judd is.  She's been raped twice and came from a hard childhood but has a caring mother.  This gives Judd a bit more toughness, like a lot of woman who get bruised from these instances (anHer mother isn't liberal herself but she cares about Judd and puts politics aside.  Judd I believe understands this.  She's articulate and smarter than people give her credit for.

          The reason why, according to what I hear, people are pro-coal in Kentucky is because of the coal jobs, not because of the coal.  What if the industry could be replaced or if the people who had jobs would be guaranteed new ones?  Even though Judd hasn't officially run, she still has time to assemble her communications team.  She'll have plenty of time to get started but she'll obviously need to announce soon and let everyone know how she's going to move forward.  On the other hand, Judd herself has taken action before because she cares about the environment and by god, we've already done enough damage to Earth.  Why do more?  

          I think Judd knows the political process.  Just watch videos of her on You Tube, study a bit and you may recognize she's a bright person.  Real conservatives (not Tea Party people) like intelligent people and really don't make that big of litmus test on the issues so long as they are actually being listened to and represented.  I know this because conservatives exist in my family in Utah, more red than Kentucky.

          I don't think Judd would be so stupid as to not recognize people need jobs as well in KY.

  •  Same in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

    The story was that the Mi Dems wouldn't support a recall of Snyder because Brewer had cut a deal to protect from right to work. And of course, we got right to work for less and got Brewer again too. And of course, they can't think of a viable candidate to confront Snyder next year!

    The Kentucky Dems are (like Michigan) good old boys who want to reward the old guard. In both states, if a new bright face isn't found, we lose.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site