# Senator Judd **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 10, 2013, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539 "2013-03-10T06:45:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/61 "2013-04-10T13:31:52Z")
I find it impossible to believe there was a bug in the office, as they hired experts to search for one and found none. I find it much easier to believe that not everyone in the room was as fond of McConnell as he might expect. He’s an extremely unlikeable guy, unless maybe if you have a fetish for guys who look like giant tortoises. It shows what a despicable prick this guy is and displays his total eagerness to take the low road in the campaign. Now he’s not only alienated women, he’s shat in the face of anyone who has ever sought treatment for depression. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/62 "2013-04-10T13:50:20Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > It shows what a despicable prick this guy is and displays his total eagerness to take the low road in the campaign. Now he’s not only alienated women, he’s shat in the face of anyone who has ever sought treatment for depression. Eh, McConnell hardly speaks during the tape, and doesn’t say anything about Judd being a woman or mentally ill. The person giving the presentation briefly mentions Judd’s mental illness (it would be a pretty crappy oppo-researcher that didn’t), but its not the focus of the presentation, and it’s done in a closed door meeting. There isn’t really much there there. If someone meant it as an attack on McConnell, it was a pretty weak effort. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/63 "2013-04-10T13:53:45Z")
I’m thinking a disgruntled staffer and Judd does not appear to be stable. Absolutely legitimate to bring that up,when someone is trying to get a job of governing people. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/64 "2013-04-10T14:29:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why would the FBI investigate the content? To see if Congressional staffers were participating in campaign work? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/65 "2013-04-10T15:59:26Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > To see if Congressional staffers were participating in campaign work? As a factual matter, most government employees can engage in political activity so long as they aren’t being paid by the government to do so, or using government resources for electioneering. The whole room could have been filled with congressional staff, and so long as they weren’t being paid by the government for their time, there is no issue. So starting an investigation into who was in the room would seem to be a fishing expedition to me. I am still curious if that is what **BG** was driving at… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/66 "2013-04-10T16:52:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why would the FBI investigate the content? Why would they investigate the source? Very awkward for them if they should actually find it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/67 "2013-04-10T16:53:48Z")
The only reason that the FBI is bothering to check it out is as a courtesy to McConnell. If the Senate Minority Leader requests that the FBI investigates, then I think it should. Sucks to be him when they confirm no outside involvement. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/68 "2013-04-10T16:55:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why would they investigate the source? Very awkward for them if they should actually find it. They should investigate it because McConnell says he believes it was the result of someone bugging his office, bugging a Senators office is a federal crime, and the FBI investigates federal crimes. Not sure if that’s “awkward” or not (guess it depends who did the taping). And you didn’t answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/69 "2013-04-10T17:16:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why would they investigate the source? Very awkward for them if they should actually find it. Because it seems plausible that a crime might have been committed. A conversation appears to have been covertly recorded, which the Federal Wiretap Act seems to prohibit. There’s no evidence at this point that anyone consented to the recording – that may be inferred, but if nobody did consent, then it seems quite likely that a crime did occur. I wish you would just explain what it is that you’re driving at, as to why it is “curious” that the FBI isn’t investigating the content. Why would you expect them to investigate the content? What crime do you think they’d be trying to establish happen, or did not happen? And what do you mean “awkward?” Is it really so difficult to explain yourself? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/70 "2013-04-10T18:05:20Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > They should investigate it because McConnell says he believes it was the result of someone bugging his office, bugging a Senators office is a federal crime, and the FBI investigates federal crimes. Not sure if that’s “awkward” or not (guess it depends who did the taping). And what then? Actually arrest/indict such person, under these circumstances? “Controversial” does not even begin to cover it; the majority will sympathize with the suspect. Very awkward for the FBI. Even more awkward for McConnell – he should be wanting this whole thing just to blow over and be forgotten; and a whole new news-story with a previously-unreported person’s name in it, and a high-profile trial coming up, only prolongs the matter’s presence in the public mind. He has played right into the [Streisand Effect.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) > [@Simplicio](#): > > And you didn’t answer the question. Was in jest, of course. The point of it being that, certainly, the content of what McConnell or his aides said on that tape is not illegal or actionable – but, it is rather more incriminating, in the broader-than-legal sense of that term (i.e., the sense that really counts in politics), than the actions of the bugger. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/71 "2013-04-10T18:10:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The point of it being that, certainly, the content of what McConnell said on that tape is not illegal or actionable – but, it is rather more incriminating, in the broader-than-legal sense of that term (i.e., the sense that really counts in politics), than the actions of the bugger. So having a meeting to discuss how to respond to a possible future opponent is “incriminating”? Does this apply to all politicians, or only Republicans? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/72 "2013-04-10T18:12:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And what then? Actually arrest/indict such person, under these circumstances? “Controversial” does not even begin to cover it; the majority will sympathize with the suspect. If a third party really bugged the office of a US Senator, I don’t think many people would find that sympathetic. > [@](#): > > Was in jest, of course. The point of it being that, certainly, the content of what McConnell said on that tape is not illegal or actionabl ebut, it is rather more incriminating Did you read the transcript. McConnell barely says anything in it. What specifically do you think he said that was incriminating, even in a non-legal sense. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/73 "2013-04-10T18:36:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So having a meeting to discuss how to respond to a possible future opponent is “incriminating”? Does this apply to all politicians, or only Republicans? To all depending on content. In this particular instance, the content is the sort of thing that I strongly suspect one would be somewhat more likely to hear at a Pub candidate’s strategy-meeting than a Dem’s. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/74 "2013-04-10T18:49:34Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > If a third party really bugged the office of a US Senator, I don’t think many people would find that sympathetic. People will think of Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark being surreptitiously recorded by Scott Prouty, who in the public mind is still the **hero** of that story, and Romney **not** a victim. Legally distinguishable situation, perhaps, but that matters little for purposes of public sympathy. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Did you read the transcript. McConnell barely says anything in it. What specifically do you think he said that was incriminating, even in a non-legal sense. Well, it’s not what McConnell says but [what his aides said](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/mitch-mcconnell-ashley-judd-secret-tape-senate) (with McConnell sitting there listening, and not at any point even jumping in to say “Shame on you! We don’t **do** that!”), that is incriminating in the sense of being very extremely embarrassing (and, at this stage in our history, tending to reinforce stereotyped negative impressions of Republican pols in general). > [@](#): > > But the McConnell gang explored going far beyond Judd’s politics and policy preferences. This included her mental health. The meeting leader noted: > > > [@](#): > > > > She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the '90s. > > In her 2011 memoirs, _All That Is Bitter & Sweet,_ Judd recounts her past bouts with depression, noting that she had considered suicide as a sixth-grader and that as an adult she had checked into a rehab center for depression. (The Jesse mentioned might have been Jesse Benton, whose wife is the granddaughter of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and the niece of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)\*—who was hired last year by McConnell to run his reelection effort. Three years ago, Benton worked on Rand Paul’s successful tea-party-driven Senate primary campaign against a GOP establishment candidate handpicked by McConnell. Benton did not respond to a request for comment.) > > The McConnell aides, though, raised the possibility of doing more than calling attention to Judd’s well-known history; they discussed how they could make her seem a true weirdo. After citing Judd’s previous mental-health issues as possible campaign ammo, the meeting leader played a tape in which Judd spoke about the culture shock and blast of sensory stimulation she has sometimes experienced when returning to the United States from overseas: > > > [@](#): > > > > I call it the American anesthesia. You know, I come back to this country. I freak out in airports. The colors, the sounds, all those different ways of packaging the same snack but trying to, you know, make it look like it’s distinct and different and convince consumers that they have to have it. I mean all of that. The last time I came home from a trip, I absolutely flipped out when I saw pink fuzzy socks on a rack. I mean, I can never anticipate what is going to push me over the edge. > > These are neither good nor honest people. > > \ > > He also contended that Judd was vulnerable on the religion front: > > > [@](#): > > > > She is critical…of traditional Christianity. She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy. She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery, which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible. > > He played another recording of Judd: > > > [@](#): > > > > I still choose the God of my understanding as the God of my childhood. I have to expand my God concept from time to time, and you know particularly I enjoy native faith practices, and have a very nature-based God concept. I’d like to think I’m like St. Francis in that way. Brother Donkey, Sister Bird. > > Laughter erupted again, with one guy in the meeting exclaiming, “Brother Donkey, Sister Bird!” The group didn’t seem to realize that Judd was referring to well-known stories about St. Francis, who once preached a sermon to birds—“my little sisters”—and who referred to his own body as the “Brother Donkey.” (In her book, Judd identifies herself as a Christian and often refers to church and prayer.) These are neither good nor honest people – and **that** is the most important impression the public will get from this story. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/75 "2013-04-10T18:51:03Z")
So you are saying that Republicans are more likely to hold meetings where they discuss strategy against a possible opponent who is a crackpot? No doubt you are correct, but they would have to, wouldn’t they? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/76 "2013-04-10T18:55:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you are saying that Republicans are more likely to hold meetings where they discuss . . . A cynical and dishonest smear campaign against an opponent? **Slightly** more likely. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/77 "2013-04-10T18:58:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > People will think of Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark being surreptitiously recorded by Scott Prouty, who in the public mind is still the **hero** of that story, and Romney **not** a victim. Legally distinguishable situation, perhaps, but that matters little for purposes of public sympathy. I think bugging an office to record a private meeting in an office will get far less public sympathy then someone who simply records a speech on their phone. > [@](#): > > Well, it’s not what McConnell says but [what his aides said](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/mitch-mcconnell-ashley-judd-secret-tape-senate) OK, that’s not what you said. You said that McConnell had said something incriminating, not that he was simply in the room when something offensive was said. The difference isn’t trivial. But in any case, even what the Oppo researcher said wasn’t particularly offensive. Judd does have mental health problems, it’d be kinda ridiculous for McConnell’s people to pretend to totally ignore that even behind closed doors. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/78 "2013-04-10T19:41:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A cynical and dishonest smear campaign against an opponent? **Slightly** more likely. Uh, cracking jokes about a candidate who, apparently by her own admission, exhibits psychological distress over fuzzy socks, isn’t a smear campaign. Accusing McCain of having a black baby out of wedlock is a smear campaign. I think that most Americans would have trouble voting for a candidate who seems to have made a fair number of odd, concerning, or disparaging remarks about one’s country, state, and mental health. I don’t think there’s any secret campaign code of protection for candidates who have trouble dealing with stress, don’t feel at home in this country, insult their home states, or sometimes act a little whackadoodle. If we fellow **BG** ’s argument just a skootch further, we arrive at the Truman maxim about how mental deficients deserve representation in government (or however that phrase went). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/79 "2013-04-10T20:27:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A cynical and dishonest smear campaign against an opponent? **Slightly** more likely. I don’t see anything cynical or dishonest in the transcript. Put it this way - which of the topics allegedly discussed would be off limits if applied to a Republican? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539/80 "2013-04-10T20:30:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Put it this way - which of the topics allegedly discussed would be off limits if applied to a Republican? How attractive is the Republican? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-judd/652539.md?page=5)