Grimes refuses to answer whether she voted for Obama — four times

Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes refused to answer whether she voted for Barack Obama not one, not two, but four times during an interview Thursday.

“I respect the sanctity of the ballot box, and I know the members of this editorial board do as well,” Grimes said.

“So you’re not going to answer?” the interviewer asked.

“Again, I don’t think that the president is on the ballot, as much as Mitch McConnell might want him to be,” Grimes said. “It’s my name, and it’s going to be me who’s holding him accountable for the failed decisions and votes that he has made against the people of Kentucky.”

20 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • girlofObecse says:

    4 times? Does she counts the primary also? Typical answers from a politician, talk a lot, and say nothing.

  • Richard Sprowl says:

    If her lips are moving, she’s lying. She’ll tell the voters what they want to hear to get elected, then she’ll screw Kentucky

  • David in MA says:

    she answered the question.

  • James in Texas says:

    I think she really doesn’t remember if she did or didn’t vote for Obama. She’s a post turtle, and a post turtle knows nothing beyond that “it” is on this post and doesn’t know how “it” got there! The sad truth is that we are, again, forced to vote to re-elect an “RINO Post Turtle” simply because he is the better of the “worst choices”, Period!

  • Vicki Roman says:

    That does it. I no longer support her.

    1. I Seigel says:

      Guest – I referred to you by name in one of my posts below. After that, you changed your name from “Vicki Roman” to “Guest”. Why? Are you worried or ashamed of what you wrote? Just curious.

  • I Seigel says:

    Was she also asked what religion she is, how many times a month she goes to church, has she ever had an abortion? What business is it of anybody’s who she votes for? A totally inappropriate question. She was right to refuse to answer.

    1. Vicki Roman says:

      We need to know where her loyalties lie.

      1. I Seigel says:

        If and when she takes the oath of office, you’ll know. Other than that, listen and read about her positions.

    2. USA1st says:

      She was asked if she voted 4 times. He was only on the ballot twice.

      1. I Seigel says:

        That’s right! I never thought of it that way.
        And did you notice – the “interviewer” is never identified, either by name or by the organization he/she works for. I couldn’t find any reference to the interviewer in any of the reports of this story.

      2. David in MA says:

        May have voted at different voting locations like the dead and negro voters do.

        1. I Seigel says:

          Yes, a white Republican would NEVER try to vote at different voting locations, or more than once. They’re all angels, law-abiding, hard-working, sober, non-abusive folks who never ever burden the taxpayer with anything. We need more of them.

          1. David in MA says:

            you again, I wish you would speak with your doctor to find out if something can be done with the nerve running from your eyes to your rectum, it might help clear up your shitty eyesight.

          2. I Seigel says:

            But no answer to my question? Nothing to say that wouldn’t betray your hypocrisy?

          3. Bill Hartman says:


            David’s statement is offensive. It is racist. He has
            built an image of the typical Obama voter who votes multiple times without any concrete basis of which I am aware. I have heard of white Obama supporters who voted multiple times, college and home, or even
            taking a multi-state tour.

            But in answer to the question you raised in response, obviously any large group (such a Republicans or
            white Republicans) will have some “bad apples”, so your question answers itself. Yet there is a truth here that you are thereby covering up.

            Progressives/socialist/liberals (such as yourself) believe in the need for social change, enforced by
            government. You believe that the Constitution, and law in general, should not stand in the way of your idea of progress. You are much less likely to be religious, and thus do not subscribe to an inflexible code of conduct, but rather a “situational” one which looks for “the greater good”. You recognize law as a tool for social change, which should be applied against those who do not agree with you, rather than equally with those “who are a part of the solution”. You do not believe in personal responsibility, but rather that a person’s skin color and how they were raised is the reason for and excuse for anything they might do wrong.

            So yes, Republicans tend to be more law-abiding because of our beliefs in the Constitution and the rule of law, and our religion. We are obviously much more likely to be hard-working and less likely to burden the taxpayer, since living off of others carries a stigma with us. We believe in personal responsibility, which does not mean that none of us drink to excess or abuse others, but we hold to standards that encourage us to avoid temptations.

            And thus, yes, we need more people with these Republican traits. And thus, Republicans are far less likely to engage in voter fraud. We are not angels, we are sinners. But we have strong inflexible personal standards, whereas liberals/progressives/socialists do not.

          4. I Seigel says:

            Thank you for a well-said and reasonable answer. I disagree with about 80% of what you said, but I appreciate your calmness and willingness to engage, rather than simply name-call.

            I’m not sure, tho, that you addressed my question, about privacy and PACs, above. I’d be interested in your view on this.

    3. David in MA says:

      As a candidate for public office these are questions the voters have every right to ask and receive an answer, she may have written Fidel Castro for all anyone knows!

      1. I Seigel says:

        Voters absolutely do NOT have the right to ask and receive an answer. Just like they don’t have any right to know what she said in a Catholic confessional or what she told her doctor or attorney privately.

        What would be the point in asking the question, if her answer couldn’t be independently verified? She could lie or tell the truth – who would know? The only reason to ask such a question is to piss off part of the electorate. Like Vicki Roman here – no matter what answer Grimes gave wouldn’t have been satisfactory to Vicki.

  • CTH says:

    Another ignoramus heard from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.