Booman Doesn't Much Like Ashley Judd. Politically.

Booman apparently doesn’t much like Ashley Judd as a politician. He liked Alan Grayson even less.

Hmmmm…

Watching Ashley Judd at a women’s reproductive health conference at George Washington University, I am very impressed with her as a person and a spokesperson for very important global issues. She really has a depth of knowledge about a wide variety of subjects. She’s also very personable, intelligent, articulate, funny, and basically likable. At the same time, I think she has a lot of work to do to be a successful politician.

Her biggest problem is that she talks about herself too much, although that is partly a byproduct of the forum. She’s talking about herself to inspire students and convince them that they can have exciting and fulfilling lives serving the disadvantaged or working for worthy causes. Still, as a Senate candidate from Kentucky, she will need to tone down the name-dropping, the humble-bragging, and the emphasis on issues that will probably seem pretty remote to the average Kentuckian.

I’m a firm believer that the first duty of a politician is to serve their constituents. Their interests come first. I don’t say this as an abstraction or some kind of ideal. I’m talking about a prerequisite for success in politics. I met Alan Grayson at a reception in Austin, Texas in July 2008. I tried to talk to him about his district and the issues that were particularly important to his would-be constituents. But he only wanted to convince me that he thought the Bush administration was filled with criminals and that he had a record of fighting criminals. I met a lot of other politicians that night. All of them impressed me more than Alan Grayson.

And here is precisely where the politics wonk-dominated leftiness world…and yes I’m talking about you, Booman, among many others…fails. Instead of supporting people who insist on promoting a moral vision it disses them if they do not show serious signs of mainstream political compromising tendencies. Now Grayson may have lost because of his refusal to compromise and thus pander to a low enough common denominator, but that does not mean that someone with other strengths…say a good-looking woman with celebrity status due to her fine acting abilities/serious role choices and her membership in a famous country-style singing family…cannot knock the socks off of a toad political hack like Mitch McConnell.

You remain an Obama supporter even after plentiful evidence that his “compromising” abilities have compromised him morally so badly that no amount of successful political back-and-forth play will ever heal the wounds that he has allowed to fester in this system.

You say that you are “…a firm believer that the first duty of a politician is to serve their constituents.” That the consituents’ interests come first. Great. What could possibly be more in “consituents’ interests” than a non-criminally infiltrated federal government?

Please.

That is Job One!!! Without that, all you have is more criminality. Look at where the whole compromise routine has gotten us so far. Political branding rather than political action.

I’m a librul. Vote fer me!!!

Please.

You say about Grayson that he “…thought the Bush administration was filled with criminals and that he had a record of fighting criminals.” And then you follow that up by saying “I met a lot of other politicians that night. All of them impressed me more than Alan Grayson.”

Have any of these other pols effectively fought this ongoing criminal conspiracy that we laughingly call our federal government? Grayson tried and lost. So it goes. Massive amounts of money and media were used against him. So that goes as well. That’s how this particular criminal conspiracy works, and it’s been incredibly successful for about 50 years.

How can it be fought?

Not by dissing people who are willing to fight back and are in some position where they might actually be able to get something done.

Your support for Elizabeth Warren puzzles me, Booman. She doesn’t play the pol compromise game and she has been quite successful so far. So why is she “good” and Ashley Judd “not so good?” Because she has some sort of academic credentials? Because the DemRat political talking points regurgitators have been told to support her but not (so far) to support Ashley Judd and Alan Grayson? Too idealistic for you, these others? Or just not stamped with the DemRat “OK” sign?

Check your shit out.

You don’t like people like Ashley Judd and Alan Grayson?

Maybe you ought to change your logo.