Could be worse, I suppose. He could have called her an empty vagina.

[No Elephants]

Seeming totally obvlivious to the fact that a stupid remark about "real rape" got women to the polls to vote Democratic in droves in November 2012, Brad Dayspring, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called Alison Lundergan Grimes an "empty dress."

GOP Strategist Calls Alison Lundergan Grimes 'An Empty Dress'



A month after Kentucky Democratic senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes pulled slightly ahead of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) in the polls, Republican strategists seem to be sharpening their claws.

Brad Dayspring, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called Grimes “an empty dress” in an interview with The Hill published Wednesday.

The insults continued from there.

“Alison Lundergan Grimes seems incapable of articulating her own thoughts, and faced with questions, either directly parrots the talking points handed to her by Chuck Schumer or she babbles incoherently and stares blankly into the camera as though she’s a freshman in high school struggling to remember the CliffsNotes after forgetting to read her homework assignment,” Dayspring told The Hill.

"This degrading and offensive comment from McConnell's campaign team is appalling and he should condemn it immediately," Grimes spokeswoman Charly Norton told The Huffington Post. "It shows his team's true feelings towards women and continues his disgraceful pattern of not standing up for the women of Kentucky. From misleading Kentuckians on his votes against the Violence Against Women Act, to voting against equal pay for equal work, Senator McConnell has failed to lead on issues important to women and their families."

"Republicans think a substance-free insult is the right way to deal with a qualified, popular woman challenger – at least their rhetoric is consistent with their anti-woman policies," said Jess McIntosh, communications director at EMILY's List, which endorsed Grimes.-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/alison-lundergan-grimes-empty-dress_n_3865060.html

Incredible.

Just for the record, Lundergan is a graduate of Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C. American U Law School may not be Harvard Law, but it ain't Phoenix Online University, either. It's a solid law school. Also, the Fayette County Bar Association awarded her the 2010 Outstanding Young Lawyer Award. Her wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Lundergan

I don't know if she is the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but it's obvious to me from her wiki that she is far from the dimmest. Since the law used to treat married women like children (literally-their contracts were not binding, same as a six year old), comparing her to a schoolgirl is especially offensive, and, of course, an empty-headed school girl is beyond the pale.

Martin Luther King had a dream, but no women were allowed on the platform from which he made the Dream speech fifty years ago, the exception being Mahalia Jackson, who was invited to sing, but not to speak.

After much pressure, the committee planning that day did include a Tribute to African American Women in the day's events, but still no female speakers of any hue.

For the record, the term "War on Women" disgusts me. Not as much as the term "real rape," but I don't like it. For one thing, I don't like any fake war term, not War on Drugs, not War on Poverty, not War on Terror. I think they help cheapen the word "war," to make us numb to it. The word "war" should cause us to recoil.

The fake war labels also imply that we can't do anything about a problem unless we declare war on it, albeit a fake war. I also think those terms should raise a red flag that someone is about to do things they probably shouldn't because, you know, all's fair in love and war. And wars theoretical increase the powers of the POTUS and probably all heads of state. As far as the term "War on Women," I think it exploited women much more than it helped them. It made it seem as though Republicans had declared war on them, while Democrats were fighting for them. The term "War on Women" served to buy their votes without either major Party having lifted a finger to do anything for them.

So, I won't say anything about a War on Women. Let's just say, I have a dream, too.

[Enthusiast]

1. I don't mind the term War on Women.

I think the Republicans should wallow in it and be tarred by it.

[No Elephants]

2. Democrats seem to have surrendered in the War on Women--except

when they think they can get votes from it. Of course, I am speaking of our alleged representatives in D.C.

At the state level, many Democrats are fighting the good fight.

Democrats had some nice majorities in 2008. No one attempted to repeal the Hyde Amendment. To the contrary, Pelosi made a point of saying it was still the law of the land when she was negotiating for Obamacare.

The D of J can enforce the federal Constitution against the states. Never saw Holder blink on penetrating women for vaginal ultrasounds as states were passing laws to require them.

And so on.

As for diluting the word "war," for the sake of partisan politics, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. I keep hearing how weak McConnell is at home; any idea why this is so?

I realize many of the mountain folk are old school Democrats, but lowland Kentucky is the most right wing redneck place I've ever seen.

They have what my parents called "Baptist mouth." That's the look they give when they scowl at people who are not from around there, or go to their church...

[No Elephants]

4. I am not sure. My guess would be that McConnell has been at it so long that .

he has come to be perceived as part of the problem, the problem for Republicans being the federal government (or so they believe