Senator Ashly Judd

[Stephanie]

Could be a good race to watch.......



Celebrities And The Senate: Would Ashley Judd Stand A Chance? : It's All Politics : NPR

She clearly has the intelligence to make a good Senator. But Kentucky is a hard core Red State.

Interesting

She has more qualifications than eye doctor Rand Paul

And at least as much as Ronald Reagan...

let us know when you she becomes a governor OF A STATE
But you Democrats don't care you elected a Junior friggen Senator for President

 

[Redfish]

Conservatives had very little to do with squashing the governments they so love.

FDR and Truman presided over the war to do that.

Neither was conservative.

Conservatives, did however, try to stop the American Revolution, and they tried to split the country into two because they wanted to keep slavery.

are you serious? Truman was very conservative, do you think a liberal would have dropped the bomb? Kennedy was another dem conservative. Kennedy would make Romney look like a raving liberal.

your knowledge of history equals your knowledge of economics.

FDR was ready to drop the bomb. You calling him conservative too?

on foreign relations and war, FDR was quite conservative. on everything else he was liberal. no one is 100% of any ideology

 

[koshergrl]

Sallow maintains that "conservatives" of yesteryear (aka "tories") and the conservatives of today are the same group of people.

Just as he likes to pretend the great liberals of yesterday are JUST THE SAME as the progressives of today.

It's just progressive propaganda. Utterly without merit.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Judd isn't going to run for President, but Senator. What was Reagan before Governor? Why, an airheaded actor. Imagine that!

I love these folks that worship at the alter of St. Ronney, but slam Ashley Judd for being {GASP} an actor...just like their lord and savior, Ronald Reagan.

RR ran the actors union. when he noticed the overt communist threat inside the union, he changed parties.

The liberal, that he was, was turned off by the communism in hollywood, WAAY back in the day.

Reagan's conversion had more to do with family, money and power than the paranoid "red scare".

And that has what to do with the fact that Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Thompson were all "air headed" actors?

sure thing

as a reminder, Arnold was the gov of CA, and wasn't Thompson in NY

Two liberal hell holes, just sayin

 

[rightwinger]

are you serious? Truman was very conservative, do you think a liberal would have dropped the bomb? Kennedy was another dem conservative. Kennedy would make Romney look like a raving liberal.

your knowledge of history equals your knowledge of economics.

FDR was ready to drop the bomb. You calling him conservative too?

on foreign relations and war, FDR was quite conservative. on everything else he was liberal. no one is 100% of any ideology

What about all the conservatives who supported American isolationism and opposed war against the Nazis?

 

[rightwinger]

RR ran the actors union. when he noticed the overt communist threat inside the union, he changed parties.

The liberal, that he was, was turned off by the communism in hollywood, WAAY back in the day.

Reagan's conversion had more to do with family, money and power than the paranoid "red scare".

And that has what to do with the fact that Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Thompson were all "air headed" actors?

sure thing

as a reminder, Arnold was the gov of CA, and wasn't Thompson in NY

Two liberal hell holes, just sayin

Thompson was from Tennesee ....not exactly a liberal stronghold

 

[rightwinger]

Sallow maintains that "conservatives" of yesteryear (aka "tories") and the conservatives of today are the same group of people.

Just as he likes to pretend the great liberals of yesterday are JUST THE SAME as the progressives of today.

It's just progressive propaganda. Utterly without merit.

Is anyone the same as people in 1776?

 

[Seawytch]

Interesting

She has more qualifications than eye doctor Rand Paul

And at least as much as Ronald Reagan...

let us know when you she becomes a governor OF A STATE
But you Democrats don't care you elected a Junior friggen Senator for President

Reagan went from actor to Governor, Judd would go from actor to member of the Senate. What's the difference?

 

[aaronleland]

Who cares? Ashley Judd isn't one either. You're thinking of Winona Rider.

well she would be the only candidate ever to show pubic hair in public.

Wrong AGAIN.

We've also seen Arnold's penis. (Google it)

Thanks for ruining my dinner, Seawytch.

 

[Stephanie]

And at least as much as Ronald Reagan...

let us know when you she becomes a governor OF A STATE
But you Democrats don't care you elected a Junior friggen Senator for President

Reagan went from actor to Governor, Judd would go from actor to member of the Senate. What's the difference?

she can't be any worse than the comedian you all put in government

 

[rightwinger]

let us know when you she becomes a governor OF A STATE
But you Democrats don't care you elected a Junior friggen Senator for President

Reagan went from actor to Governor, Judd would go from actor to member of the Senate. What's the difference?

she can't be any worse than the comedian you all put in government

Photoshop is fun isn't it?

 

[Political Junky]

Reagan went from actor to Governor, Judd would go from actor to member of the Senate. What's the difference?

she can't be any worse than the comedian you all put in government

Photoshop is fun isn't it?

What would cons do without Photoshop?

 

[deaddogseye]

looks like she is starting to run in to some resistance (assuming she actually has decided to run) from Democrats in her own state - or Kentucky that is since she now calls Tennessee home. There are reports that they are becoimng concerned that with her as the highest profile Dem on the ballot in 2014 her very leftist views could cause the Democrats to lose control of the state house and they are looking for a more centrist opponent for McConnell. Just have to wait and see. At this point i dont get the sense the nomination even is hers for the taking -- she might actually have to slug it out some.

 

[BreezeWood]

-- she might actually have to slug it out some.

She has already accomplished her mission by the Rs running adds against her without even being a candidate .... She has nothing to lose by running in the primary and supporting whoever wins the nomination.

 

[deaddogseye]

-- she might actually have to slug it out some.

She has already accomplished her mission by the Rs running adds against her without even being a candidate .... She has nothing to lose by running in the primary and supporting whoever wins the nomination.

if that was in fact her mission, I guess thats true. fair enough. but why would that be her mission? What did it really accomplish?

A couple of observations -- if in fact she would turn out to be a disaster for the dems in Ky (and im not saying she will be, im just picking up the narrative some have voiced) then Crossroads GPS might have made a mistake by going after her so early. maybe it would have been better to let her get the nomination then unload on her . just a thought.

as far as nothing to lose -if she were to be defeated badly in a race where the Dems allegedly have a shot to knock off a high profile republican (again not saying i beleive they do but they sure are saying they do) and rightly or wrongly she gets blamed for something like alose of the statehouse, then she gets tarnished pretty bad and becomes the butt of jokes and of course a heroine to those on the right -- fair comment would be that she becomes the Democrat Sharon Angle who lost to Reid who the Repubs all thought was so vulnerable (IMO Reid never was and McConnell probably isnt either). Just dont know how much she would care about that but she might.

Just some thoughts

 

[BreezeWood]

I was just speculating it may have been her mission just for all the attention her possible candidacy has caused ... 2nd thought to actually run.

the accomplishment was the Rs taking her candidacy seriously - and giving credence to her liberal views. She has nothing to lose by entering the primary and everything to gain if she wins, as far as her liberal agenda - Same as Rand Paul. McConnell may lose just because Kentucky is tired of him.

 

[deaddogseye]

I was just speculating it may have been her mission just for all the attention her possible candidacy has caused ... 2nd thought to actually run.

the accomplishment was the Rs taking her candidacy seriously - and giving credence to her liberal views. She has nothing to lose by entering the primary and everything to gain if she wins, as far as her liberal agenda - Same as Rand Paul. McConnell may lose just because Kentucky is tired of him.

they definitely took her seriously or so it seems. and the other plus of her candidacy would be the national effect -- some think she would help raise interest among Democrats nationwide and get more to vote and contribute in an off year election. LOTS of out of state money would flow to both sides and it would clearly be the Warren / Brown marquis matchup of 2014 although this time the Repubs would have home field advantage.

 

[Sallow]

really? how many executive orders did Bush sign? How many did Obama sign? Now please tell us who is acting like a fascist dictator.

Looks like Bush signed 291.

Obama's got 147.

Executive Orders

What was your point?

8 years vs 4 years. lets revisit this in november 2015.

Why?

You brought it up.

So..what's your point?

 

[Sallow]

are you serious? Truman was very conservative, do you think a liberal would have dropped the bomb? Kennedy was another dem conservative. Kennedy would make Romney look like a raving liberal.

your knowledge of history equals your knowledge of economics.

Truman and Kennedy, conservative?

Folks like you were calling them communists back in the day.

NO, swallow. a little history study should be your next undertaking. Truman dropped the bomb and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" can you imagine obama saying anything like that? of course not.

Sorry fag. No swallow for you. I guess the "Redfish" thing is an gay advertisement for things you like to suck on. But I don't swing that way homoboy.

And you have no idea what you are talking about. Neither President was conservative. And conservatives, like you (as well as being a closeted quifter) were calling them both, commies.

You should reference CONSERVATIVE presidents..faggot.

 

[Sallow]

Sallow maintains that "conservatives" of yesteryear (aka "tories") and the conservatives of today are the same group of people.

Just as he likes to pretend the great liberals of yesterday are JUST THE SAME as the progressives of today.

It's just progressive propaganda. Utterly without merit.

The propaganda is what you folks are doing.

Mixing and matching..bait and switch.

No one is falling for it outside your echo chamber.