Mitch McConnell's Kentucky State GOP Spokesperson Arrested



Oh, Mitch. What are you up to now?

Well, first comes the attack on his Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. McConnell and company thought they had found a new angle to use against her. A way to get women to vote for McConnell and not his female opponent. Truthfully it's going to take a lot of mass hypnosis to make that happen, but if anyone can do it, its the suave and debonair Senator Mitch M.

The formulating attack is interesting, if not a confused one. The Republican party in ol' Kentuck is going to paint Grimes as anti-woman. Yes, they're saying that the Grimes, the female Kentucky Secretary of State, doesn't care about protecting women. Here's how The Hill put it:

The Republican Party of Kentucky is calling on Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, to return a $500 donation from director Woody Allen, who has faced scrutiny in recent weeks over the reemergence of sexual abuse allegations against him.

Now I don't know about you, but these are charges that are more than a decade old and have been revived recently and rebuked by the victim's own brother, Moses. But another brother, Ronan Farrow (MSNBC) supports his sister's claims. So there isn't even consensus within the family whether or not these heinous events ever happened.

Most likely we'll never know the truth. And it's always so much easier to believe the alleged victim and despise the accused predator in sexual cases like these. But many times they pan out to be nothing more than manipulations of angry individuals. What's worse than being accused of committing a sexual crime? Committing it on a minor.

This may be a true accusation against Woody Allen. Then again it could be the work of a manipulative parent, in this case actress Mia Farrow, wishing to destroy the reputation of her former partner. Daughter Dylan Farrow may be telling the truth, or the truth as it was pounded into her by a manipulative mother. Like I said, we'll probably never know.

But what is certain is that no official charges have been levied against Woody Allen. And therefore, why should Alison Lundergan Grimes return a $500 campaign donation from someone who's never been charged with a crime?

Yet the story gets better.

“If Alison Lundergan Grimes really cares about standing up for Kentucky women, she should return both former Representative John Arnold’s and Woody Allen’s donations to her campaign," said Kelsey Cooper, communications director for the Kentucky GOP.

Spokesperson for the Kentucky GOP and Mitch McConnell operative Kelsey Cooper is spearheading this attack. Never heard of her before? Well, maybe here's a quick education on this fine woman from

mug shot Kelsey CooperOfficial mug shot Kelsey Cooper

FRANKFORT — The spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Kentucky has been placed on a two-week unpaid suspension after being arrested Saturday night in Lexington for driving under the influence, state GOP chairman Steve Robertson said Monday.

She failed multiple field sobriety checks and a Breathalyzer test, which showed her blood alcohol level at 0.184, according to the citation. It is illegal in Kentucky to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher.

"She obviously made a mistake and she knows that," Robertson said of Kelsey Christine Cooper, 23. "I hope she learns a valuable lesson from this. She has been an important part of our team. We'll just go from here."

I would say that making unsubstantiated claims against Woody Allen by Ms. Cooper, a criminal herself, is a bit hypocritical. If McConnell thinks Grimes should return the money, don't you think he could have found a better spokesperson? Driving under the influence as his State Party operative, Cooper did could have injured or killed many innocent people. Should all of her donations to the Republican party be returned and perhaps she step down for her endangerment to the entire state?

I think not -- yet unlike Woody Allen, Kelsey Cooper was found guilty.

Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here. When you've spent years in the Senate as Mitch McConnell has, and voted so often against women's best interests, it might behoove you to find a better way to attract women to your campaign than putting a convicted drunk woman out there as your image of a representative to draw in the female vote.

What's next Mitch, will your new posters have a barefoot, pregnant woman making her man breakfast  before he goes out to work in the dirty-coal mines?

  • I've not followed the story all that closely. I've read news accounts (not editorials) and Dylan's piece. I did catch one L.A. Times column that warned writers that if they were to post about this topic, they'd lose friends. How sad that she could be right about that.

    As I said, I tend to believe Dylan, and having had my own share of abuse in my life, I felt a lot of pain as I read her account.

    But I'm confused on a couple of points, Skippy. Neither of these questions are intended as snark, not in the least:

    First: Has this become a conservative/progressive issue? If so, I wasn't aware of that.

    Second: I didn't understand your comment "you might want to tread more lightly in the progressive blogging world." What did you mean exactly?

    As for the blog, as I mentioned, each of us is an individual with their own opinions. I have no problem with "blowback and outrage" at any given post, we get that sometimes, so yes, by all means, address those to the author, but the site in general doesn't own a computer. The site doesn't write posts, individuals do.

    We have no problem allowing varying points of view under one banner, and we encourage conversation and debate. We certainly don't expect readers to come here only if they agree with us on everything. In fact, we've had some very friendly arguments with those on the right who pop in now and then (and some nasty, pointless ones with trolls), and those on the left (Snowden, anyone?).

    Commenters have often made me think harder about a topic, even changed my mind occasionally. So if readers disagree with us, please talk us down. We only ask that you keep it civil.

    We are all progressives here, but we don't always march in lockstep, nor are we required to. If anyone is dissatisfied with a post or a contributor, skip it and move on to the next post. We all can't agree on everything, and if we did, it would be a pretty boring world (albeit probably a lot more peaceful).

  • David G

    Skippy, though you interpret the points differently that I do, I will genuinely offer you once again an apology if my progressive words offend you. You've obviously been through a lot are are rightfully sensitive to this issue. I'll even graciously understand your misinterpretations and accusations of "conjecture" and "canard" which are used to present the other side of the story. Yes, even in heinous accusations there's another side of the story. It doesn't mean approval or acceptance, but a counter-balance. The courts make the final judicial judgments. As I'm sure we both agree, there are no court convictions associated with Dylan Farrow's claims. We can only observe and no one other than Dylan and Mr. Allen know the truth. Your tragic experiences have no bearing on the facts of this case, merely the emotions. But indicating there's another side to this story is valid, like it or not. Finally, you include quotation marks around the word, manipulative, indicating I used it. Perhaps italics might be more appropriate if you want attention to that word, not attribution. If I err in future posts, point it out. It doesn't mean I will agree, but I definitely will pay attention. DG

  • Hi, Skippy - I find this statement from you very strange: "you might want to tread more lightly in the progressive blogging world".

    It leads me to wonder 'or what'? so that's what I'm asking you.....or what?

    I've never seen nor would want to see progressives marching in lockstep with their opinions, whether victims of child sexual abuse or not.

    Having seen an implanted fake memory destroy a woman in real life lead to a very ugly situation, a memory of an incident which was later proven could never have happened, I don't think it's entirely impossible that someone could have planted the 'memory' in Dylan's mind, and, as David said, we will never know since none of us were there. My saying that does not, in any way, mean that I approve of child abuse nor that I'm certain Woody Allen is innocent. I don't know, I wasn't there.

    But still...I have a friend who's more progressive/leftist/liberal than anyone else I know who interprets the Second Amendment in a very different way than I do (I'm 100% anti-gun-craziness). So is she no longer progressive because she doesn't see gun control exactly as I do?

  • skippy

    well laffy, i admit i was in-artful in ascribing david's premise to the while of political carnival... but certainly not as in-artful as david was in his whole essay. to describe mia farrow "manipulative", even in conjecture; to dismiss dylan's accusations with the "more than a decade old" and "her brother rebuked it" canard immediately in the writing before getting to the actual point 3 paragraphs later (allen not charged, cooper convicted); to walk away from the whole argument ("we'll never know what happened") after bringing it up when, again, it wasn't necessary beyond 'allen accused/cooper convicted' thesis... it's all rather like kicking over a bees nest in a nursery school and saying "i just wanted to see if kids liked honey"

    another reader above said this is the stuff the right would do and we'd poke holes in it. i agree. sloppy debate makes for dissatisfied readers. so if political carnival lets their writers set up strawmen and logical fallacies, no, i won't hold you responsible for the content of the argument, but yes, you as the blog have got to expect blowback and outrage.

    pardon me...i, as well as several members of my immediate and extended family are survivors of child sexual abuse, so you might want to tread more lightly in the progressive blogging world.

  • David G

    Skippy, I don't give Mr. Allen a pass. I don't even say he's without blame. I do say he's without a court conviction. Why this wasn't all brought to justice earlier still confounds me. But if you look above, I've written a further explanation to my take on this issue. I chose Mr. Allen because that's who McConnell, Ms. Cooper and the Kentucky GOP chose to single out. DG

  • David G

    I hope you'll read my response above where I address some of your concerns. But even in criticism, I thank you for taking the time to express yourself.. DG

  • David G

    Known pedophile? Well, I'm not sure where you draw that distinction, but accused and convicted still mean different things in this country. Do I think Woody's free from wrong doing? Hell, no. But hearsay isn't what we should be judging people on. But I do accept your criticism, James, and sorry if I offended you in the least. And the comparing the two crimes, child abuse and drunk driving are of course not equal. But there is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black between Ms. Cooper and Woody Allen. She's the one who brought him up.

  • David G

    I hope you'll read my response above. DG

  • David G

    First I'd like to say that my posts, like them or not, are mine. They do not represent the unanimous feelings of The Political Carnival. I'm given full editorial approval of what I write, and those choices should not be looked upon as representing this site as a whole. They are mine and mine alone.

    If you have a problem with me, then lets talk it out. But don't take it out on any of the other contributors to this site. Ignore my posts if that's your wish, but don't judge this whole book by one chapter. The other contributors here, regular and guests, are bright, articulate and intelligent individuals.You'd be losing out by painting us all with one broad stoke of the brush.

    Sadly or maybe encouragingly this post has brought up a strong discussion where it may very well be needed. I would like to say that putting the snarkiness aside regarding my normal touch to a subject, I'm not condoning or lacking of any empathy for victims of any crime.The truth is I've been a victim of crime myself. But that just makes me even more understanding of this particular starting off point for this particular post -- that a convicted woman who endangered many lives feels free to criticize a non-convicted alleged criminal (who may very well have endangered many lives). But the difference here is CONVICTED vs ALLEGED. I chose these words carefully.

    I don't have any interest in Woody Allen. I do have an interest in trying to be accurate as far as the law and justice system dictates. To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Woody Allen issue has NOT (yet, at least) resulted in his being convicted of a crime. Did he do what he's accused of? I would hope not but personally i believe there's more than smoke to that fire.

    I didn't chose Woody Allen out of thin air to write about for this story.It was the Kentucky GOP, specifically Ms. Cooper, who chose this connection. I merely took it and examined it as I do many controversial stories.

    Mr. Allen's own family are torn on whether or not the events Dylan Farrow alleges are accurate. I can't make that decision. That's for a court to decide. if Dylan was the victim as she claims, then Mr. Allen deserves his punishment.

    A final comment of self-defense against those who have a problem with what I wrote -- I have a good friend who went through a very messy divorce. During the proceedings he was accused of a number of heinous acts, sexual acts, against his infant daughter. She was too young to testify so it became a "she said, he said" argument to the court. The judged sided with caution and my friend was prohibited from any visitation with his children. For five years he proclaimed his innocence all the while fighting to get his rights. Then soon after his wife had remarried, she confessed that she had lied to get back at him during the divorce hearings. The court exonerated my friend, but it was too late. His reputation was soiled beyond repair.

    Today even with the court record corrected, the flames of his ex-wife's vengeful lies have ruined him. He can now visit his daughter but he lost five years, formative years over a trumped up charge. I don't say this happens all the time. What I'm saying is my friend is the exception and exceptions do exist. So lets just be fair and open-minded, despite the personal distaste for the entire thing. Please don't let personal experiences stop you from accepting one of our strongest tenets in the justice system. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    So a final apology to those I've offended. This is a deeply rooted apology, but if you look at what I wrote, the facts are the facts. And I'd ask that if this explanation is still not clear, click on the link in the post which will take you to the article on Moses Farrow regarding his sister's claims. He has a different take on the accusations than his own sister. I'm not accusing Dylan of lying. I'm also not picking the accused over the victim. But for those, like myself who've been victimized by a crime, we want justice. And we didn't always get it. But like with my friend, accusations should be followed up by our legal system, not ideas formulated by our biases or our reading/watching news reports that can be so easily slanted in any direction.

    David Garber

  • I need to step in to say one thing. Whether or not any of our contributors agree or disagree with David or with anything any of us write, we are individuals, not an entity. So "The Political Carnival" is not "giving Woody Allen a pass."

    The Political Carnival writers are allowed to write what they want, express their opinions, and are not told how to write. We occasionally disagree with each other, and that's fine. The Political Carnival isn't a person. It's a place where a number of people are invited to express their opinions in print.

    Personally, I believe the daughter, but that doesn't change the point I'm making here.

  • gardenmoll

    You're very wrong on this one, David. Siding with Woody Allen is an affront to sexual assault survivors. Contrary to your claim, siding with alleged victims is not "easy," which is clearly demonstrated by people such as yourself who choose to give the benefit of the doubt not to the victim but to the rich, famous male whose lies and bad behavior are well documented in the courts as well as in the media. Survivors of all ages, on the other hand, are more often than not called liars, sluts and seekers of notoriety and/or financial compensation. Articles like this one perpetuate that attitude and keep only the bravest survivors from coming forward.

  • JE Moody

    She should return the donation. David Garber you've come out as an opponent to sexual abuse victims.

  • James Markwell

    I am a die hard liberal, but this is weak and petty. Possible child sex abuse is NOT the same as drunk driving. And giving Woody, a known pedophile, a pass because the allegations might not be true is.. I don't even know what to say about it. This is a right wing tactic, and I like to think that "we" are above that to some degree. I know plenty of extremely respectable folks who have made the drunk driving mistake(I should have been one of them at a few times in my life), but that is a far cry from molesting a child(allegedly).

  • This is stuff the right would say and then we'd poke holes in it. Misguided, petty, uncalled for. McConnell is bad for Kentucky, bad for the US, bad for women, and it seems likely this Dem opponent would be an improvement. But nothing in this article addresses that. I don't care too much about a $500 donation, but if this candidate comes out with statements like the ones in this article, throwing shade on child sex abuse victims, I'd think she was an idiot. Jerry Sandusky was just an "alleged" abuser too until he was tried & convicted, and how many victims, eyewitnesses, and years did that take?

  • I detest Allen, I don't even like his movies but there are scads of evidence that this didn't happen. There's a very good piece about on The DailyBanter.

  • That is a very generous statement and is a lovely reminder to be nice!

  • judi


  • David G

    Perhaps it's not her best angle -- or moment.

  • skippy

    yikes! i can't believe the political carnival is giving woody allen a pass with the old "we'll never know what happened" defense...

    irrespective of his guilt or innocence, allen's culpability has nothing to do with cooper, with her arrest or conviction.

    i'm kind of amazed this strawman is on the political carnival...

  • Prior to Grimes announcing she would run, there was plenty of chatter, at the time I thought she could make a dent but probably not win. However once she committed to the candidacy she really stepped up. She seems to be perfectly suited to best represent the people of Kentucky as well as handling any mud flung on her by McConnell. It's like he's not very good at this, you'd think he would have had more practice.

    Although completely unnecessary and petty - Cooper 23, seriously? She looks to be old enough to have children 23 years old.