While she hasn't given up on acting in recent years, success hasn't been as forthcoming (her Emmy-nominated work in Missing doesn't count since it was never intended to be a miniseries, despite its latter designation). Instead, she's used her millions and her celebrity to highlight causes special to her heart, and unlike a lot of celebrities who write a check and occasionally show up for a televised fundraiser, she's walked the walk, travelling the globe fighting AIDS, poverty, and giving more opportunities to women. Really admirable work, and if the Academy ever gets over its aversion to giving out Honorary Oscars to women, she'd be a fine recipient someday of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.
However, when it comes to her latest venture, I have to admit to being quite leery. Ms. Judd seems very intent on running for the U.S. Senate against Mitch McConnell, and in recent days has basically said as much while hitting the campaign trail. Liberals are cheering at the thought of someone taking down the Senate Minority Leader, and with her natural charisma and 100% name recognition, there are some attributes in Judd's corner to make the case for her running.
However, those attributes are nothing when you compare them with the unfortunate negatives that come with her candidacy. For starters, while the Judds have a strong Kentucky background, she's been living in Tennessee for years, which gives the impact of a carpetbagger mentality that has sunk candidates before (why she doesn't primary Jim Cooper, since she's likely in his district, is beyond me as that's a safe House seat and Cooper is way too conservative to represent it). In addition to this, Judd's politics just don't mesh well with a conservative state like Kentucky-candidates like Al Franken, probably the best recent comparison one can make to Judd, win because they happen to be running in blue states. Al Franken wouldn't have stood a prayer somewhere like Kentucky; you need someone like a Heidi Heitkamp or a Joe Manchin to win a red state as a Democrat-someone who can connect with voters while also toeing the moderate line. Ashley Judd is way, WAY to liberal (god love her) to be able to win in a red state.
I wouldn't have this much to say if it weren't for one other factor. If Ashley Judd were running in Wyoming or Utah, I'd say great, have at it-maybe we'll get the other side distracted enough that we'll be able to get them to spend money that could go to more pivotal races like South Dakota or North Carolina. However, Kentucky is not an impossible race to win for the Democrats, we just need the right candidate-though it's hardly competitive on a presidential level, Mitch McConnell won his last race by just six-points, the state has a (conservative) Democratic governor, and when an incumbent has a 37% approval rating, that's a recipe for a victory if the Democrats have the right candidate, and can create the perfect storm. The Democrats have that candidate too: Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who won an open seat race four years ago by over 20-points (better than any other Democrat that year, and better than almost every statewide bid by Mitch McConnell). Now, running for Secretary of State isn't the same thing as running for the Senate, but those numbers are too impressive not to want to court her for the seat.
So, Ashley, while I admire you lighting a fire in this race, and would be 100% behind you running in a more liberal backyard, please take a pass and endorse Grimes for the Senate in 2014. The causes you are espousing are going to do a lot more good with a Democrat in this seat than a Republican, and that's a circumstance you just can't deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment