They didnt vote to change Obama or Harry Reid.

 

That's because republicans suck. Nobody to blame but themselves for sucking.

I don't believe that there are enough two-time Obama voters in Kentucky to put Grimes into office, and I doubt that many other people will consider voting for her. Obama is poison on the campaign trail in states like Kentucky. He can avoid the state but Grimes cannot escape his shadow.

That's because republicans suck. Nobody to blame but themselves for sucking.

 

And once again your correct. The R party has too much fighting inside their own party.

At least the D party is on the same page, even though the page is wrong.

And once again your correct. The R party has too much fighting inside their own party.

At least the D party is on the same page, even though the page is wrong.

 

:lol2:

 

I'll never claim the dems are right all of the time just because I share the same beliefs with them.

Why is Mitch a "big part of the problem in Washington"? There are 435 member in Congress and John Beohner is the speaker and Nancy Pelosi the minority whip. There are 100 members in Senate which must vote on the bills proposed by Congress. According to some facts, Congress has proposed numerous 40+ bills to improve the economy, and the Democratic majority Senate will not discuss them or vote on them. So that is because of Mitch?

 

It doesn't matter whether he is or not. If you are running a campaign against him, you still label him as part of the problem. Just like every single Dem candidate is labeled as liberal. In a campaign, there is no such thing as a moderate Dem - you call them all liberals. You want to define your opponent for the voter. In this race it is pretty easy to define Mitch as a big part of the problem in Washington - he has been there a long time; he is a leader in Congress; he has shaped campaign laws; etc.

It doesn't matter whether he is or not. If you are running a campaign against him, you still label him as part of the problem. Just like every single Dem candidate is labeled as liberal. In a campaign, there is no such thing as a moderate Dem - you call them all liberals. You want to define your opponent for the voter. In this race it is pretty easy to define Mitch as a big part of the problem in Washington - he has been there a long time; he is a leader in Congress; he has shaped campaign laws; etc.

It is very easy to blame McConnell for being part of the problem in Washington because he is a big part of the problem. However, Grimes, who would just be another Obama rubber stamping obstructionist for Obama, would certainly be worse.

 

If Republicans gain control of the Senate, then many bills will land on Obama's desk for consideration very quickly. Democrats in the Senate would finally get the opportunity to vote on the stack of bills that have been passed by the House and blocked by Grimes' friend in the Senate, Harry Reid, and Obama's claims that Republicans have no alternative for anything would be exposed as the lies that they are.

 

Losing control of the Senate would be an absolute disaster for Obama but a great victory for this nation.

Let me be very clear. I am no fan of McConnell but I'm less a fan of Reid and Obama. In MOST years I would have supported Bevin in the primary and in most years he could possibly have won the general. So much liberal money is being poured into the race from out of state (although the lib on here that has tried to turn this to a Koch Bros. thread seems to ignore that) that an upstart could not have won. McConnell was the only Republican with the funds to defeat 3rd Pick Ali. If Grimes does pull it out she will absolutely be beholden to the liberal interests that have supported her thus no mentions of her positions on issues. Rubber Stamp Ali must be defeated.

Then why have there been only two Republican governors of the commonwealth since 1950?

 

And why is Kentucky barely in the top 40 of places to do business? Coincidence?

Then why have there been only two Republican governors of the commonwealth since 1950?

 

Stupidity?

Even though I have an ALG sign in my yard, I agree with some of the right-wing criticisms posted on this thread. ALG's campaign needs to focus more on candidate ALG rather than simply make this a referendum on MM. Needs to be a TV ad with lots of her family showing that ALG is a solid Kentuckian "who shares our values." She also needs to respond loudly and decisively when Mitch is caught in a bad way, such as when his campaign manager Jesse Benton resigned last week, and when Mitch was caught on tape kissing the posteriors of the Koch brothers.

 

I would consider myself way more left-leaning on many issues than probably many of the "liberals" on here. I am only conservative regarding economic issues- which IMO are the most important for the government as its major goal should be in allocation and management of resources...not social agenda. I do try to be analytical about decisions, and I do try to gather facts. There are none to be gathered regarding Grimes. She is the manchurian candidate's, manchurian candidate. Simply put in and propped up to win another political position to further the (p)resident's socialist agenda.

And why is Kentucky barely in the top 40 of places to do business? Coincidence?

 

Education?

And why is Kentucky barely in the top 40 of places to do business? Coincidence?

 

Poverty

And ask Detroit how decades of almost exclusive Democratic governance worked. Is Kentucky headed in that direction? That's certainly something to aspire to.

Then why have there been only two Republican governors of the commonwealth since 1950?

 

Democrats in Louisville say many (or most?) democrats out in the state really aren't democrats, they are Southern Democrats which in their view are really just moderate Republicans who refuse to be called republicans due to still not being able to get over the Reconstruction. Their opinion, not necessarily mine.

Poverty

 

from the other thread

 

America's Top States For Business

 

Kentucky's lowest rankings are in access to capital and economy and 36 out of 50 for several areas including business friendliness. One can go on and on about greedy companies, but those companies employ people. They will employ them where they believe they have the best opportunity to employ and manage them affectively. Union/non-union is very seldom about compensation and benefits..those days are past...it is all about being able to implement accountability, promote the most qualified people with the best attitudes legally, and manage one's busines with a level of flexibility reasonably required in today's ever-changing environment. These are not the hallmark of the typical union shop.