Michelle Nunn’s “campaign” for Senate officially passed the parody stage in an interview with the Guardian when she refused to weigh in on whether Obama or Bush was a better President.
From The Guardian:
Nunn has exerted robot-like control on the campaign trail to avoid association with Obama. Cross-examined by the Guardian, the candidate refused to say whether she would have voted for the president’s flagship healthcare law and, asked who was the better president – Obama or Bush – she declined to say.
This is the same candidate who had previously refused to answer whether she’d vote for Obamacare on five separate occassions. And the same candidate who can’t decide if she’d support Harry Reid for Majority Leader.
How does a person this conflicted get through the day? How does she decide what to have for breakfast in the morning? Does she refuse to discuss hypotheticals at dinner parties? Does she just sit in front of the TV endlessly flipping through channels because she can’t choose what to watch?
More likely, she actually isn’t conflicted at all. Does anyone really believe that the person who wrote an op-ed supporting Occupy Wall Street has no opinion on Bush vs. Obama?
All this dodging is really just a ruse to try to avoid an unpleasant reality. Nunn has opinions on Obama v Bush (Obama), how she would’ve voted on Obamacare (in favor), Harry Reid as Majority Leader (pro ) but she is not admitting it because those positions are politically inconvenient. Unfortunately for Nunn, eventually she’s going to have to tell voters what she really thinks otherwise she’ll be opposed for another reason- phoniness. Voters in Georgia aren’t as dumb as Nunn thinks they are, they can see through the charade.