I am not a Chuck Todd hater, but I do wish he hadn’t been absorbed into the Beltway punditry Borg. He says he feels physically ill about the Mitch McConnell campaign using his words against Alison Lundergan Grimes, but he’s the one who said that Grimes had disqualified herself by refusing to tell voters who she voted for, which is her right as a U.S. citizen. He has his excuses, but they mainly involve his impatience with politicians not answering questions in a forthright and honest way. Media Matters called him on his double standard in this portion of their interview with Todd.
MEDIA MATTERS: What do you say — what do you think is the standard for saying someone’s disqualified? I mean, things like Mitch McConnell doesn’t believe in —
TODD: My point is, it’s up to a voter.
MEDIA MATTERS: — global warming or others —
TODD: My point is it’s up to the — the voters make that decision, not me.
MEDIA MATTERS: Right, but you’re the one who mentioned it.
The most recent Bluegrass Poll shows the McConnell/Grimes race as a dead heat with McConnell holding a 44%-43% lead, eight percent still undecided, and with a 3.9% margin of error. The results show a slight erosion of Grimes’ position over the last Bluegrass Poll which may or may not reflect some damage from media’s (primarily, Chuck Todd’s) focus on her non-answer to the voting question. But, any way you look at it, no objective political analyst could possibly say with a straight face that Grimes has disqualified herself. She is dead-even in the polls, with close to a 50% chance of winning.
Chuck Todd doesn’t address the fact that he was simply, factually wrong in what he said. Instead, he apologizes for injecting his stupid ill-informed opinion into NBC’s coverage of the most high-profile campaign in the country. He doesn’t acknowledge that, by his own standard, Mitch McConnell should have disqualified himself many times over, but retreats to saying that the voters should decide what is disqualifying.
Maybe we should be discussing what ought to disqualify a political pundit from having one of the most important jobs in political media.
You are running for US Senator and you refuse to say if you voted for your party’s nominee. That is a dis-qualifier. Maybe Grimes should decide if she’s a Democrat or an Independent. Is she a Lieberman and voted for Romney? All she has to do0 is say she voted the straight Party ticket. Or that she voted for the Party’s nominee.
Right. And if she wins, you can tell me again how it’s disqualifying.
It may be blasphemy, but winning isn’t everything.
Nah, the fact that one would even ask such a stupid question – “Did you vote for your party’s nominee?” – disqualifies the questioner from getting an honest answer from anyone about anything. Everyone knows the answer and everyone knows why she can’t say so when she has to get votes from the Hatfields and McCoys in order to win the election.
Well she is trying to say she didn’t without actually saying she didn’t.
Perhaps some nuance, like “President Obama falls short of my ideal in many ways, but he is infinitely preferable to Mitt Romney, who, along with Mitch McConnell, would have turned Kentucky’s proud people into beggars with their very lives at the whim of their employers. He would have taken health care away from our vulnerable elderly, but in contrast, President Obama has brought health care to more than half a million Kentuckians. Mitch McConnell wants to take that away. Mitch McConnell wants to let the mine owners run dangerous mines and disregard mine safety…”
The “…” is to indicate that you continue moving the discussion away from Obama and via Romney turn your answer into a diatribe about McConnell. And I’m not even a debater or a politician. You just can’t stand there with your finger up your butt and refuse to answer. I’ll tell you, Dick Durbin can do it much better. So can Bernie Sanders. I’ve heard him do this many times to unfriendly callers to the Thom Hartmann show.
That’s what I was saying. If Grimes wants to run as a Democrat, she had to find a way to finesse it. Besides, would that ever get asked of a GOPer? Of course not!!
In Kentucky? Nuance goes over their heads…
Her political instincts leave much to be desired. I doubt she put in the work to develop them.
She’s won state-wide office in Kentucky and has been in electoral politics for over 20 years – she’s not new to this and she’s succeeded as a Democrat in a red state.
And for those who were concerned with the DSCC pulling out of KY, Alison has saturated TV with ads – I see ads for her on every station and every show. The DSCC resources were best spent elsewhere, like Alaska. Alison’s going to be fine.
God! I’d love to see the Turtle defeated!
how about privacy of the ballot box. this whole discussion annoys me. he should ask if she supports her party, fine, not for whom she voted. btw Amanda Curtis handled that great
how about privacy of the ballot box. this whole discussion annoys me. he should ask if she supports her party, fine, not for whom she voted. btw Amanda Curtis handled that great
Here’s Amanda Curtis,
she mentions Obama not running, and ACA
http://mtpr.org/post/listen-oct-20-us-senate-debate
After reading that little MMFA snippet, I’m going to go out on a limb and say there will be nothing on the next two installments that will improve my opinion of Chuck Todd.
“Maybe we should be discussing what ought to disqualify a political pundit from having one of the most important jobs in political media.”
If we did that, we’d have no political pundits left – except for a handful.
Hmm…
Maybe THAT’S the way to save what’s left of the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In a recent NPR interview, the editor of Cosmo said it is reporter’s job to disappear. Good advice.
But on the other hand, repeating a demonstrably false lie, over and over again is NO disqualifying. Chuck Todd set himself up as the arbiter of what entitles a candidate to win, and in the process has shown his blatant bias.
Chuck Todd, media whore.
I am not a Chuck Todd hater, but I do wish he hadn’t been absorbed into the Beltway punditry Borg.
That went out the window once he went to work in Versailles, if not before.
PHUCK Chuck Todd
Chuck Todd is a fascist enabler. Period.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chuck-todd-it-s-not-media-s-job-to-correct-gop-s-obamacare-fal
sehoods-video
At some point we have to spare ourselves the suspense of whether this or that mainstream media personality will have a sudden fit of journalism.
These are synthetic personalities with a little human being inside whom craves only attention. Everything else is trivial to them.
Yes he is. Unlike Booman, I am a Chuck Todd hater. For the reason you cited.
I was not aware use of the secret ballot has a constitutional basis. I am aware the ballot was not always secret in elections within the US.
On the other hand, the qualifications for federal office are specified in the US constitution, and a willingness to reveal past electoral choices (votes) is not among them, as I recall.
Nor, I think, is anyone required to answer any question asked by any individual, journo or not.
The whole controversy is stupid, based entirely on the shit in Chuck Todd’s head that he tries to use for brains.
Once Chuck Todd comments that one political candidate has disqualified herself he is no longer has the moral position to not comment on the qualifications of any other politician. And isn’t it part of journalism to report when a candidate is lying, or avoided answering a question? Todd’s opining on one candidate and not the other marks him as a partisan.