As Kentucky Democrats lose power, Stumbo loses grip on reality

After Republican Simeon Willis left office as Kentucky’s governor in December 1947, Democrats began to obtain a stranglehold on political power in the state.

Two decades later, Louie Nunn was elected as a Republican, but he governed as a Democrat, which many think contributed to the GOP’s exile to the desert of Kentucky’s politics for an even longer period of time. Nunn’s backing of an increase in the state sales tax from three to five cents spawned the derisive term “Nunn’s Nickel” and the unflattering nickname “Nickel Louie.” One might say that Nunn was Kentucky’s first RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Between 1971, when Nunn left office, and 2003, when Ernie Fletcher became the state’s first governor in 32 years, Democrats consolidated power in state government. The Frankfort bureaucracy was stocked with fellow travelers and like-minded workers. For most of those 32 years, Democrats had unchecked power. Not until 1999, when Republicans took control of the state Senate, were there any restraints on what the Democrats did.

During those three decades, absolute power corrupted absolutely. Democrats came to see control of the state as their birthright, and they didn’t take kindly to threats to their authority. The hostility they showed Fletcher was a prime example. But now, the challenges to the entrenched power structure are coming faster and more frequently than ever before. And the old-line Democrats don’t know how to respond, except to lash out as they see their power eroding.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate and Fletcher ended the 32-year drought in gubernatorial victories, the GOP has been steadily gaining traction. Voter registration figures, once solidly in the Democrats’ corner by nearly a 2:1 margin, have trended solidly for the GOP. The figure is now about 1.3:1 and is inching closer to 50-50 each year. Republicans are gaining ground in wresting control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats. And last month, the state again elected a Republican governor in Matt Bevin.

Bevin’s upset victory over Attorney General Jack Conway has really threatened the Democrats’ power. And no one is showing the stress of that threat more than House Speaker Greg Stumbo.

Stumbo first showed signs of losing it on Election Night, when he delivered a bizarre rant that mixed religion and politics in a way that I thought was anathema to Democrats. He basically said the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on morality and called on Democrats to challenge them. His comments led many to wonder if perhaps he hadn’t been at the hotel bar drowning his sorrows before he took to the stage.

The rant would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. As long as Democrats continue to support legalized abortion as a voluntary method of birth control, they have no moral authority whatsoever on any subject. And Stumbo’s own personal track record further undermines his credibility.

If Election Night was bad for Stumbo, things have only gotten worse since. State Rep. Denny Butler, a retired police officer, announced he was switching to the Republican Party, and he said it was largely because House leadership – meaning Stumbo – had not been attentive to his concerns about law enforcement issues. Stumbo didn’t say much then, but when Bevin appointed Rep. John Tilley to a cabinet position, the speaker went off. He began questioning the integrity of both Tilley and Butler, both of whom had enjoyed stellar reputations across partisan aisles. He accused them of selling out, hinted at criminal activity, and railed at Bevin and the state GOP for offering improper inducements. Although most Democrats appeared to be pleased with Tilley’s hiring, calling him a good fit for the job, Stumbo couldn’t be gracious enough to congratulate him. And although Stumbo denied any knowledge of the distasteful stunt someone pulled by placing a “For Sale” sign on Tilley’s House chambers desk, his protests rang hollow.

And all of this was before Bevin last week appointed another Democrat lawmaker, Tonya Pullin, to an administrative law judge position.

There was always the possibility that some Democrats, sensing the inevitable, would change their party registrations in advance of next year’s House elections. Besides Butler, there’s talk that possibly a half-dozen more will switch. The possibility of the Bevin administration giving more jobs to House Democrats also looms.

Kentucky Republicans have made no secret that they want to “Flip the House” in next year’s elections. That’s a goal of both Bevin and U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. But even with state government trending Republican, it’s not a done deal. Two Republican representatives (Mike Harmon and Ryan Quarles) were elected to statewide office, and Democrats are expected to try very hard to win those seats when the special elections occur. There’s no guarantee that Republicans can win the special elections to replace Tilley and Pullin, since Democrats dominate voter registration figures in their districts. But Republicans sense blood in the water. They think a combination of party changes and electoral victories will give them control of the House to go along with the Senate and the Governor’s Office, giving them a chance to move Kentucky forward after decades of stagnation and regression.

State GOP leaders hope to challenge every incumbent they feel is vulnerable. In my own district, a Republican retired educator is planning to take on a first-term incumbent and is already at work on the campaign trail.

Republicans running against incumbent Democrats need to make Stumbo’s speakership an issue, especially given his classless remarks since the gubernatorial election. They need to publicly challenge sitting Democrats to denounce and condemn Stumbo, and to distance themselves from him. They need to ask those sitting legislators if they are comfortable with Stumbo being the leader of their chamber and their party.

I still can’t believe that Stumbo was ever able to become House speaker. After giving up the attorney general’s office for an ill-fated run for lieutenant governor, Stumbo strong-armed his hand-picked replacement in the General Assembly into stepping down so he could regain his seat. Then he somehow managed to wrest control of the chamber from Jody Richards. While I never thought much of Richards’ politics, I never heard a disparaging word said about him as a person. He certainly doesn’t have the well-known baggage that Stumbo does. That the Democrats would choose someone like Stumbo over a person of Richards’ character doesn’t speak well of their judgment. They should be made to pay a political price, and if Stumbo continues to come unhinged as he sees his power evaporating, they’ll have even more to try to excuse or defend.

Most of Kentucky’s leading Democrats have accepted their political losses with some dignity. Jack Conway and Adam Edelen have been classy in defeat. But Stumbo is part of the old line of Kentucky Democrats who have held power for decades and don’t want to give it up. Expect more meltdowns from him as control continues to slip from his grasp.

Much can be cut from state budget, if Bevin knows where to look

Every time I go to Frankfort, I pass by the office of an obscure state agency. I’ve never heard of anything this agency has ever done. As far as I know, it’s never been in the news for anything. I’m not exactly sure what its duties are. All I know is that it’s a state agency that consumes dollars from the state budget.

Since the agency has an office that’s separate from any other state facilities, it’s a safe bet that the state pays rent on the building. Since there’s an office, that means there’s a staff that must be paid. It also means there are bills for electricity and telephones and water and other services.

I recently heard that this obscure state agency was looking to hire a public relations person. I have never seen this agency in the news. I have never seen any press releases issued by this agency, or by any other agency touting this office’s work. If this office has labored in obscurity to this point, why does it need publicity now?

What’s the name of this agency? That’s irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that such an agency exists, and it has several other siblings scattered across state government. It seems to me that this agency is ripe for abolition, with its functions being absorbed into other existing cabinets and departments. There are several agencies that would be perfect fits. The office expenses could be abolished, personnel costs absorbed through attrition and some money saved within the state budget.

Many of us believe that the government has strayed far from the duties for which it was intended. While it’s true that federal overreach is a hot topic, and the 10th Amendment and the concept of “reserved powers” would seem to give much governmental authority to the states, there’s still a widespread belief that government at all levels does too much, and too many things it was never meant to do. Personally, I struggle with the concept that the founders and framers would endorse the idea of government-paid health care.

We keep being reminded that times are lean. Former Gov. Steve Beshear frequently talked of shortfalls in the state budget and the number of cuts he had to make. He seemed to be fond of making overall cuts to the budget instead of targeted cuts to weed out unnecessary and duplicative programs.

New Gov. Matt Bevin has a golden opportunity to rein in the scope and power of Kentucky’s state government. Here’s hoping he will take full advantage of the chance that has been given him.

Bevin won’t be able to do anything immediately, unless he and his budget wizards are really good. He will have to present a budget for the upcoming biennium to the General Assembly barely a month into his term, which began last week. It’s likely he will be able to submit nothing more than a continuation budget until he and his staff get a handle on things in Frankfort. Plus, he’s sure to face opposition from the House of Representatives, currently under control of House Speaker Greg Stumbo and the Democrats, if he attempts wholesale cuts or implementation of new programs.

But in 2018, there’s real potential. By that time, the governor’s staff will have had a chance to review the offices and programs in state government. They should be able to pick out the ones that do very little, are duplicates of other efforts or don’t provide what is truly an essential service to the public. In addition, there’s a good likelihood that the House will be “flipped” from control by the Democrats to the Republicans in next year’s state legislative elections, which will give him two chambers that will be friendlier to his proposals. Bevin and Sen. Mitch McConnell may still be on tenuous terms, according to some, but they’re united in their goal of “flipping” the House next year. And even if Republicans don’t succeed in gaining control of the House, Bevin can omit those wasteful, duplicative and nonvital programs in his budget, then use the line-item veto to strike them if the House includes them.

We all agree that there are things the government must do for the betterment of society. Enforcing the law and building and maintaining roads are just a couple of those essential services. But there are many offices, agencies, commissions, boards, bureaus, departments and divisions tucked away in the recesses of state government, consuming resources but providing questionable benefit. The vast majority of Kentuckians wouldn’t miss them if they disappeared, especially if their important functions could be taken over elsewhere. And the taxpayers would appreciate a break and the opportunity to keep more of what they earn.

Some fear that Gov. Bevin is going to take a “slash and burn” approach to state government. I don’t foresee that happening. I think he will be reasonable and measured with the needed downsizing. He and his advisors will evaluate the cost of each function against the value. When the unneeded and redundant programs are eliminated, there will be more money available to meet the vital needs of the state without increasing taxes. And there are many areas of state government that are desperately underfunded, and not just the pension either, although that situation’s gotten most of the attention. Unneeded offices and programs are sucking money away from areas where it needs to be spent.

It’s been nothing short of amazing to watch Bevin’s opponents melt down on social media, in the press and in online comments on news stories. They don’t realize that the Medicaid expansion they’re championing is unsustainable over the long term. Projections vary, but the consensus is that it may be sustainable for a year or two but will not be sustainable after 2020, especially when federal funding dries up. How can the state pay for it without a devastating tax increase? And no one seems to be asking the bigger question of why it’s the state’s responsibility to provide health insurance anyway.

New Kentucky governors really don’t get a chance to settle into the office and get their programs in place. There’s only a month between the election and the inauguration. Then there’s only about a month before they and their new personnel have to present a budget. So it’s much too early for Bevin’s big-government liberal detractors to jump up and down about how he’s damaging the state.

Matt Bevin’s only been governor for a little over a week now. He’s still making appointments to his staff and trying to figure out the lay of Frankfort, being that he arrived as an outsider businessman instead of a career politician. He has the opportunity to make a real and lasting mark on the commonwealth. He can begin by identifying and eliminating wasteful and duplicative spending, such as for that obscure little agency I pass by on my way into Frankfort.

Eastern Kentucky cannot accommodate an influx of Middle Eastern refugees

Last month’s terrorist attack in France, committed by Islamic extremists, sparked an intense debate across America on whether or not we should accept refugees from the Middle East.

Those opposed raise the very real possibility that some of those radical Muslim terrorists might mix in with the refugees so they can bring their jihad against American values to American soil.

And in a stance so ironic that it would break the sturdiest of irony meters, if such things existed, many of the same people who scream “separation of church and state” declare that it would be un-Christianlike of the United States to turn the refugees away.

A number of governors have opposed the placement of refugees in their states, while others have said the refugees will be welcome. In Kentucky, there’s a divided opinion between the outgoing and incoming administrations. Ex-Gov. Steve Beshear – and I cannot tell you how good it feels to be able to call him “ex-governor” – said, before he left office, that Kentucky should allow the refugees to come here. New Gov. Matt Bevin – and I cannot tell you happy I am to be able to say that – thinks they should be excluded until we get a better vetting system in place to separate the terrorists from those who are seeing refuge.

Two weeks ago, an eastern Kentuckian offered up one of those typical liberal feel-good solutions that sounds appealing on its face, but withers under logical scrutiny.

Dee Davis of Whitesburg, president of the Center for Rural Strategies and publisher of The Daily Yonder website, wrote a column that was later picked up by the Lexington Herald-Leader in which he advocated for bringing as many refugees to rural eastern Kentucky as possible.

(Interestingly, I discovered when researching this column that The Daily Yonder was founded by former Herald-Leader columnist and reporter Bill Bishop, who never saw a rural economic development strategy that he didn’t hate.)

There are a number of problems with Mr. Davis’ recommendations that have nothing to do with terrorism or an influx of Muslim refugees from a different culture (although I’m sure things might get pretty heated pretty quick the first time one of the refugees wandered into a mountain grocery store and saw the meat department chock full of bacon, ham and other pork products.)

Does Davis live in the same eastern Kentucky as I do? It’s doubtful, because this area is not physically or financially able to accommodate or support an influx of refugees. There are

We’ve had refugees come here before. Probably the most prominent was the patriarch of the Dawahare family. He came to New York City from Syria to escape religious persecution, met and married a native of Wise County, Va. (which borders Letcher County), eventually moved across the mountain to Kentucky and started a business that evolved into Dawahares. The legendary clothing store became well-known in the mountains and in Lexington before it finally succumbed to the changing tides of the retail business.

But times are different now than when Dawahare came here around the turn of the last century. He arrived in the mountains in the midst of a coal boom. Coal’s in a bust cycle now. The climate that was hospitable to his entrepreneurial efforts just isn’t there now.

Rural eastern Kentucky simply does not have the housing to accommodate a large number of immigrants. Decent privately-owned rental housing is scarce in many small towns, and since many of the refugees are leaving with only the clothes they’re wearing, it’s not likely that they’re going to be buying homes. There are already worries in one mountain county about a possible housing shortage. One of the alternatives for extending the Mountain Parkway from Salyersville to Prestonsburg involves widening existing KY 114. If this option is chosen, approximately 120 families would be forced to find new homes, and Floyd County does not have enough available housing to accommodate those who would be displaced. Given the economic situation in many rural counties, it’s not likely that there’s going to be a boom of new housing construction simply to accommodate the refugees.

And if they do find housing, what are they going to do? Mountain counties suffer from chronic joblessness. Kentucky just released unemployment data from October, and the top (or bottom) 10 counties are all in eastern Kentucky. A number of layoffs have been announced since that information was compiled. Even an entrepreneur like Serur Frank Dawahare Sr. would have a hard time selling merchandise to a clientele that has trouble keeping their lights on and their families fed.

Can we afford to provide government benefits for those who come here but are unemployed or underemployed? We’re constantly reminded just how dependent the people of this region are on various government aid programs. And that leads us back to the housing question. Pick a small town, and you’ll probably find that most of the rental properties are subsidized government apartment complexes. There are usually long waiting lists for those. And, as many have pointed out, shouldn’t we be taking care of our own before we start accepting those from elsewhere?

Then, there’s the matter of education. Because of declining enrollments, many mountain school districts are closing older schools. If the school systems haven’t sold the old buildings, the state is not likely to let them reopen the facilities. The tax base in most of these counties cannot support additional levies to fund new school construction, and local residents in many communities don’t want their taxes raised. (In Lee County, twice in the last two years, voters by wide margins have rejected a tax increase for school construction). Budget cuts are forcing some school districts to lay off teachers, and those who remain are being stretched thin to cover essential subjects. These school systems cannot afford to hire English-as-a-second-language teachers to work with the children of refugees.

These few items jumped immediately to the top of my mind as soon as I read Davis’ column. While his piece seemingly purports to answer some of the questions, upon closer inspection his reasoning falls apart. I’m sure that with deeper scrutiny, even more compelling reasons could be found as to why the wholesale resettling of refugees in this area simply won’t work.

If the refugees can come here, contribute to society in a meaningful way and not be a drain on it, and assimilate into American culture, then I’d have no problem with them arriving in this area. But there’s no way that we can accommodate them given our current state of affairs. This area simply doesn’t have the facilities or opportunities they need to flourish in the United States.

Some cautionary words for the Bevin administration; or, there’s still a snake in the grass

Twelve years ago, I was writing a column for a now-defunct website called kyrepublicans.com. I had become acquainted with the site’s owner during the Ernie Fletcher gubernatorial campaign, and he invited me to contribute to his site upon learning of my journalism background.

About the time of Fletcher’s inauguration in 2003, I wrote a column for that site entitled “Snakes in the Grass.” In that column, I cautioned the Fletcher administration about partisan foes Crit Luallen, who had been elected auditor; and Greg Stumbo, who had won the attorney general’s race. It was obvious to me that those two would use their offices in any way possible to try to bring down Kentucky’s first Republican governor since the 1960s.

I wish I had as much luck predicting lottery numbers as I did in forecasting the Democrats’ behavior. While Luallen didn’t go after the Fletcher administration (she seemed instead to target local Republican officeholders), Stumbo certainly did.

A brief history of the “scandal” that plagued Fletcher’s term is in order. A Transportation Cabinet personnel official had been a classmate of Fletcher’s at Lafayette High School in Lexington. This employee had hoped to parlay his connection to Fletcher into a cushy appointed state government position. However, he and Fletcher were not friends in school, and Fletcher didn’t remember him from their days at Lafayette. When the employee was publicly embarrassed that Fletcher said he didn’t remember him at a state government event at the Transportation office building, he retaliated. Personnel decisions that he had approved and said were OK suddenly became illegal. Instead of taking his concerns to the state Personnel Board, he went straight to the attorney general’s office. Legitimate questions were raised as to if he had illegally obtained the emails he used to bolser his allegations.

Naturally, he found a receptive audience in Stumbo and his minions. Stumbo was looking for a way to take down the Republican governor and soften him up so the Democrats could reclaim the Governor’s Mansion in 2007, and Stumbo himself was considering running. (He eventually ran as Bruce Lunsford’s running mate). The lead prosecutor had been an outspoken supporter of former Attorney General Ben Chandler, whom Fletcher defeated in 2003. The grand jury was tainted by members who had so many conflicts of interest that it would have been impossible for them to impartially evaluate the evidence and testimony presented during the investigation. (For example, one of the grand jurors was married to a member of Stumbo’s investigative staff).

None of these details were ever reported by the mainstream press, which was also hostile to Fletcher, although they were readily available to anyone who wanted to dig. In fact, a few enterprising bloggers made those inconvenient truths public but the media never picked up on them, to the public’s detriment. Many believe that the Fletcher administration illegally fired lots of merit system employees. That just isn’t true. Only one merit system employee who had openly supported Chandler was fired, and he was still on probation, which meant he could be let go for any reason or for no reason at all. There’s no evidence that any civil service employee was fired for political reasons.

What resulted was a partisan, politically-motivated witch hunt that resulted in the Democrats winning back the Governor’s Office in 2007. Although Stumbo didn’t win, his party did, and he found his way back into power by reclaiming his legislative seat and then leading a coup against House Speaker Jody Richards.

The press and the Democrats were hostile to Fletcher, to be sure, but that looks almost tame compared to the disdain and outright hatred they’re showing Gov.-elect Matt Bevin. Read the editorials written by the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Courier-Journal since the election, check the comments section on post-election news stories or go back and listen to what can only be described as the rambling, incoherent rant by Stumbo on Election Night that many suspect was fueled by one too many attempts to drown his sorrow.

Which brings us back to that snake in the grass.

Just as Fletcher faced a hostile attorney general, so too will Bevin. Andy Beshear squeaked by in his race, and it’s a given that he will be just as motivated to take down Bevin as Stumbo was Fletcher.

An extra bonus is in sight for Beshear. There’s currently a leadership vacuum in the Kentucky Democratic Party. With the losses by the party’s presumed leaders, Jack Conway and Adam Edelen, the KDP appears rudderless. Its top two officials are Beshear and Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Their fathers, Steve Beshear and Jerry Lundergan, are two old-line party stalwarts who, coincidentally, are old personal and political foes who don’t get along at all. At this very early stage, Andy and Alison have to be considered two prime candidates to try to retake the governorship for the Democrats in four years. Alison’s office has no investigatory powers, but Andy’s does. And if he successfully uses them to soften up Bevin, his personal stock within the party goes up.

What the Fletcher administration was trying to do with its Governor’s Personnel Initiative was an attempt to reverse decades of abuse of state hiring practices. During the past eight years, things have regressed back to where they were in the days of Ford, Carroll, Collins, Jones and Patton. Much like Fletcher did upon taking office in 2003, Bevin faces a personnel situation that’s in need of correcting. And if his administration tries to fix what’s been broken again, will Andy Beshear follow in Greg Stumbo’s footsteps?

True, some of Fletcher’s appointees made some mistakes. They paid a price, too. The ones who slipped up were fired. But things were never what Stumbo or the daily papers made them out to be.

So as Matt Bevin takes office and sets up his administration, they would be wise to keep a close eye on Andy Beshear. He has plenty of motivation for going after the Republican governor. It would benefit his party, which is rapidly losing its grip on a Kentucky government and political machine it’s controlled for decades. And it would benefit him personally, as he builds his bona fides to step into a leadership role for a party that seems to be lost at sea.

My advice to the new administration would be to keep the grass trimmed way, way down, so that the Andy Beshear snake is visible at all times. Don’t let that snake slither into tall grass, where it can hide and strike the way the Greg Stumbo snake did.

Some leftovers from the recent election

As many Kentuckians get ready to give thanks that a new governor will be taking office in a couple of weeks, let me help you get ready for the holiday season by serving up some leftovers from this month’s election.

*****

By now, the tired old false rhetoric from the left should come as no surprise. Liberals continue to insist that conservatives hate females and minorities. Opposition to abortion on demand as a form of elective birth control is termed a “war on women.” Efforts to protect the integrity of elections are declared “racist” and an attempt to suppress the votes of blacks. Even positives are turned into negatives by those on the left looking to demonize conservatives. When Mitt Romney talked during his 2012 presidential campaign about actively recruiting women to work in his gubernatorial administration in Massachusetts and collecting their resumes, somehow having “binders full of women” job applicants became a bad thing.

The same untrue narrative made its way to Kentucky’s statewide races this year. Apparently those trying to tear down Republicans didn’t pay very much attention to the election results.

In case you didn’t notice, two of the Republicans elected to statewide offices are women. And one of them, Lt. Gov-elect Jenean Hampton, just happens to be the first black ever to win a statewide election in the Bluegrass State. Hampton and Treasurer-elect Allison Ball are success stories. Yet their wins appear insignificant to Kentucky Democrats. They’ve belittled Hampton’s victory by implying that voters who supported her ticket with Gov.-elect Matt Bevin didn’t know she was black, as they continue to claim that Bevin won because of racially-motivated animus against President Barack Obama, whose father was black. Rubbish. It’s doubtful that many, if any, Bevin voters weren’t aware of Hampton’s race. Yet the party that just elected a black lieutenant governor is somehow racist. Unbelievable.

Further proof of the true diversity of conservatives can be found in the presidential candidate field currently vying for the GOP nomination. Three of the top-tier candidates are minorities (Ben Carson is black; Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Hispanic). Bobby Jindal, who quit the race last week, was another minority candidate. Carly Fiorina is female. Youth is also well-served in the Republican field.

Despite evidence to the contrary proving the claims of the left wrong, they keep on insisting that Republicans hate women and minorities. Hampton and Ball are probably enjoying a good chuckle every time they hear that worn out falsehood.

*****

As the campaign wound down, I started to wonder if Jack Conway himself even believed he was qualified to be governor. That’s because he and his surrogates rarely talked about his positive attributes. Instead, they were constantly on television attacking Bevin.

Candidates say they don’t like to use negative advertising, but they have to because it works. Turns out it didn’t work out so well for Conway.

Conway said very little about why he wanted to be governor, what he intended to do or what qualifications he possessed. One of the few positive traits he bragged about was being a lifelong Kentuckian, which was an obvious dig at Bevin because Bevin’s not a Kentucky native.

Wonder how Brereton Jones, the former Democratic governor in whose footsteps Conway wanted to follow, felt about that? Jones isn’t a Kentucky native either, and I don’t recall Larry Hopkins using that against Jones in the 1991 gubernatorial campaign.

There’s evidence that voters tired of Conway’s attacks against Bevin, especially since he never offered his own positives. It’s reminiscent of Conway’s failed 2010 U.S. Senate campaign, when he turned the unproven and unverifiable “Aqua Buddha” allegation against Rand Paul into a television ad, and it backfired.

Conway ran a terrible campaign. He didn’t connect with the voters on a personal level. Bevin did. Despite being branded by his detractors as an out-of-touch rich carpetbagger from the Northeast, Bevin was able to relate to everyday Kentuckians. And they were able to relate to him. I’ve heard stories about Bevin’s interaction with people as he campaigned across the state. Those interactions were 180 degrees different from the interactions with reporters that many of them were so eager to write about.

Several pundits have theorized that Conway’s career in politics is over. I wouldn’t be so fast to write him off. After all, outgoing Gov. Steve Beshear fashioned a political comeback several years after a couple of statewide losses. But Conway would do well, if he ever runs again, to forego the negative campaigns and try to focus on his positives. He’s now been burned twice by attacking his opponents instead of promoting his strengths.

*****

Another politician who may have been bitten by the negative advertising bug is Adam Edelen, who lost his re-election bid for auditor to State. Rep. Mike Harmon in what was widely viewed as an upset.

Edelen ran an over-the-top television ad late in the campaign, attempting to portray Harmon as some sort of living-the-high-life party boy who had himself a good time on the state’s dime. There was never any real evidence to back up those charges, especially one that depicted Harmon drinking and living it up.

Edelen was regarded as one of his party’s rising stars, and the same pundits who have now written Conway off think Edelen will be able to come back from his loss. Those who supported Edelen pointed to what they called a successful term as auditor. They should have counseled Edelen to run on that record instead of coming out with a nonsensical attack on Harmon. Edelen’s loss was arguably the low point on a bad election night for Kentucky Democrats. With a little care, they could have avoided it.

*****

Here’s wishing everyone a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Take time to thank God for your blessings.

Outrageous voter-fraud conspiracy proves outsiders should steer clear of Kentucky politics; not speak about things of which they’re ignorant

I had intended to use this space for a cursory analysis of the Kentucky statewide elections, which saw Republicans take the governor’s race for only the second time in the last four decades, and then offer a few ideas for Gov.-elect Matt Bevin’s administration as he moves forward.

But when I saw the completely off-the-wall conspiracy theory, posted on a couple of lunatic left-wing websites, that Bevin won only through massive voter fraud, I had to laugh.

Kentucky politics aren’t well-understood by outsiders. I’ve had many conversations with people who think the Bluegrass State is dominated by Republicans since the state has of late tended to vote for GOP candidates in federal elections. Out-of-staters don’t understand what a grip the Democrats have held on state government and many local governments as well. Twice last week I heard Bevin say on national radio shows that 72 percent of elected officials in Kentucky are Democrats, and despite gains in voter registration numbers, fewer than 40 percent of the state’s electorate checked the “R” box on their registration form.

Sadly, even some Kentuckians have bought into the election fraud theory. When someone posted a petition on change.org, demanding a federal investigation into the gubernatorial election results, a number of Kentuckians echoed that sentiment. They must not have been paying attention to what had been going on in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 3 election, or they’d be ashamed of their silliness.

Those who are alleging election fraud point to two main facts. First is that the election results were misaligned with polls that indicated Bevin would lose to Jack Conway. Those same polls got last year’s U.S. Senate race between Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes wrong as well. They tend to oversample Democrats, and the media outlets that commission the Bluegrass State Poll have made it known they’ll use another pollster in future years.

The second bit of “proof” that the election was tampered with, they claim, is that down-ballot candidates got more votes than did Conway, who topped his party’s ticket. They say this is unusual. In fact, it’s not unusual at all. In the last two gubernatorial elections proceeding this year’s, the Republican candidate for agriculture commissioner (Richie Farmer in 2007 and Jamie Comer in 2011) far outpaced the Democratic gubernatorial nominee. And the two Democrats who did win statewide elections have well-known fathers. Andy Beshear is the son of sitting governor Steve Beshear. And Alison Lundergan Grimes is the daughter of longtime party operative and former Democrat chairman Jerry Lundergan. The names Beshear and Lundergan carry a lot of weight in “D” circles in Kentucky, and both candidates had a great deal of name recognition. Even though Steve Beshear and Jerry Lundergan don’t like each other very much, they are the leaders of the state’s Democrats, so it’s natural that support would flow to their children.

To further display their cluelessness, the conspiracy theorists said the election had been rigged by GOP insiders. What more proof does one need than that statement that they have no clue what happened? As secretary of state, Grimes is in charge of elections in Kentucky. It’s highly unlikely that she would allow Republicans to steal a race. And Bevin was not exactly the darling of the Republican establishment in Kentucky. He beat Comer, the establishment’s preferred candidate, in the primary; but more importantly, he dared to challenge Mitch McConnell in last year’s U.S. Senate primary. He ran a doggedly independent race against Conway, and some observers even speculated that the party’s hierarchy wasn’t 100 percent in support of him because they felt if he won, it would make “flipping” the House of Representatives to a Republican majority that much harder.

Why, then, did Bevin surprise the pollsters and sweep to victory and leave liberals scrambling to invent out-in-left-field reasons for the result? Lots of pundits have put forth their theories, but there’s a simple explanation that sums it up. In short, Bevin outworked Conway. Anytime there was a candidate forum, a public gathering, a small town festival or parade or other event, it seemed Bevin was there, and Conway wasn’t. Bevin went out and connected with the people of Kentucky. Conway ignored advice from his own party that he needed to be a better retail politician. While Conway spent time with rich donors who didn’t need to be convinced to vote for him, Bevin went straight to the people. Bevin ran a great campaign and Conway was terrible.

Of course, issues played a role. Obamacare, religious freedom and support of Kentucky’s coal industry were key. So were taxes, jobs and education. In numbers greater than anyone expected, the voters who did turn out decided overwhelmingly that the party that’s controlled Kentucky for decades has done a poor job, and gave the reins to someone else.

So shortly after midnight on Dec. 8, Matt Bevin will take the oath of office as governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He’ll have to plunge immediately into the dual tasks of setting up his administration and preparing for a legislative session. Make no mistake: He earned this opportunity, and this responsibility, honorably and honestly. Nothing fishy happened here, despite what some leftists who are distant from Kentucky and disconnected from reality might have you believe.

Time for reform in Kentucky’s statewide elections

Now that Kentucky has elected its leaders for the next four years – and shocked the world by electing Republicans to a majority of statewide offices for the first time in anyone’s memory – it’s time for the state to seriously look at some reforms designed to increase voter participation, streamline government and reduce expenditures.

This state elects too many officials, on both the statewide and local levels. Most of those elected positions should be hired jobs instead, whether through executive appointments or civil-service employment. With the state elections fresh in everyone’s mind, let’s take a look at the changes that need to be made in the process.

Commissioner of Agriculture: Kentucky doesn’t elect its highway commissioner, its property tax commissioner or its state police commissioner. It also traded in its elected superintendent of public instruction for an appointed education commissioner several years ago. Why should it elect its agriculture commissioner? While agriculture is still an important economic generator for the state, its days of dominance as the state’s leading industry are past. Plus, it often happens that the interests of the governor and the separately elected agriculture commissioner are at odds. This causes duplicity in state services, as there also is a Governor’s Office of Agriculture Policy in addition to the Department of Agriculture. It’s time to eliminate the elected position of agriculture commissioner, make it a gubernatorial appointment, and roll the Department of Agriculture into an existing cabinet, or make it a cabinet-level agency.

State Treasurer and Secretary of State: These offices provide administrative functions that could easily be absorbed by other agencies. The treasurer’s duties would be a natural fit for an administrative or revenue collection office. The secretary of state’s duties could easily be divided among other agencies, as well. Election oversight could be transferred to the State Board of Elections, and business registration would be a natural fit in any of several cabinets or departments. Doing away with these positions as elected offices would also eliminate the possibility of politicians using them as stepping stones for higher office. This used to be standard operating procedure in Kentucky back when officeholders were limited to one four-year term in any position. Politicians played musical chairs with the minor elected offices. They’d spend four years in one office, then move to another office for a single term, then to another office, and then the cycle would either rotate back or they’d seek the governorship. We can probably expect Alison Lundergan Grimes, who was just re-elected as secretary of state, to run for governor in four years.

Auditor of Public Accounts and Attorney General: These positions are a little trickier. There are lots who advocate eliminating the other three lower-level statewide offices but want to keep these positions independently elected because they perform a watchdog function on the executive branch. But there is a simple solution to that: Use the federal model. Make these positions gubernatorial appointments, like the others previously listed, but make the appointees subject to confirmation by the Senate. The auditor, like the treasurer, could probably be absorbed into an agency in charge of revenue or finance. The attorney general’s office could probably be attached to the governor’s office, or made an arm of the Justice Cabinet.

There’s precedent for reforming Kentucky’s statewide elections. Prior to the 1995 races, the state approved changes allowing officeholders to succeed themselves once, along with requiring candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run as a slate. Prior to that, the governor and lieutenant governor were elected separately. This led to the awkward situation of Republican Louie B. Nunn having a Democrat, Wendell Ford, as his lieutenant governor.

Even when the governor and lieutenant governor have been from the same party but separately elected, there’s been friction. Wallace Wilkinson and Brereton Jones didn’t particularly get along; neither did Jones and Paul Patton when Jones succeeded Wilkinson. And even electing the state’s top two officials as a slate doesn’t guarantee harmony. Ernie Fletcher and Steve Pence famously split over Fletcher’s pardoning of those targeted by Greg Stumbo’s partisan persecution and witch hunt. And Steve Beshear relegated Dan Mongiardo to persona non grata status as soon as they took office, then jettisoned Mongiardo from his ticket when “Dr. Dan” chose to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010. It was painfully obvious that Beshear used Mongiardo solely for geographical balance on his ticket because other eastern Kentuckians were on opposing slates.

There’s been discussion about changing this setup to allowing gubernatorial candidates to run independently in the primary election and selecting a running mate after the nomination is secured, much as presidential candidates do. This effort failed the last time it was brought up and at this time it’s not known if the idea will be resurrected in next year’s legislative session.

This leaves one final reform that should be instituted. Back in 1989, local officials were elected to a one-time-only five-year term. Now, their election coincides with the presidential midterm election for congressional seats. This eliminated an election cycle in Kentucky, saving state and local agencies 25 percent on their election costs. Now, we only have elections in three out of every four years. The same thing should be done on a statewide level. The next time Kentucky chooses a governor, he or she should be elected to a one-off five-year term and the state elections should be pushed back a year to coincide with the presidential election. Not only would this save money on the cost of administering elections, but it would likely increase turnout since there seems to be more interest in presidential elections than in statewide elections.

These are bold proposals, to be sure, but they would serve to improve public service and voter participation in Kentucky, and decrease costs as well. It’s time for the Bluegrass State to modernize its state government and the way our officials are chosen.

Crickets chirping? No, it’s the sound of interest in Kentucky’s governor’s race

Odd. Unusual. Weird. Quiet. Strange.

Those adjectives pretty much sum up the consensus of political analysts concerning next week’s gubernatorial election in Kentucky. In a state where some past races have provided Fourth-of-July-type fireworks for political junkies, this year’s contest seems to have resulted in a collective “yawn” from the Bluegrass State’s electorate.

Even some columnists who routinely comment on such things have sought out other subjects on which to opine, even as Election Day draws nearer.

Want evidence that it’s a different kind of election? Democrats are complaining that their candidate, Jack Conway, is spending too much time raising money and not enough time campaigning. And Republicans aren’t happy that their nominee, Matt Bevin, is concentrating on campaigning instead of raising money.

What’s causing this feeling? There’s a widespread perception that neither party is particularly happy with its candidate. Bevin’s story is well-known. He scored an upset victory over the favorite and preferred candidate of the party’s hierarchy, Jamie Comer, and the opponent who was considered to be Comer’s strongest challenger, Hal Heiner. When Comer and Heiner began discussing each other instead of the issues, Bevin slipped through the middle and claimed his surprising win.

Bevin’s not in favor with the state GOP’s leadership and establishment because of his primary challenge last year to U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. Some of McConnell’s surrogates have been indifferent or downright hostile to Bevin in their public pronouncements about the race. There’s also a theory floating around out there that the state party’s real priority is to take control of the state House of Representatives in next year’s elections, and having a Democrat as governor would be more conducive to that goal. There’s sentiment that having a Republican governor will be beneficial to Democratic House candidates, so it makes things easier to offer only tepid support to a GOP gubernatorial candidate who isn’t well-liked by the party’s movers and shakers.

The traditional primary election roles were flip-flopped this year. Democrats usually have dog-eat-dog gubernatorial primary races. While Republicans had a crowded field and a spirited race, Conway had an easy walk to the fall. He faced only token opposition in the primary, and neither his positions on the issues nor his bank account were challenged. A number of other prominent Democrats were rumored to be considering running, or were encouraged to get in the race, but none opted to run. Names like Lt. Gov. Crit Luallen, Auditor Adam Edelen, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, former Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, House Speaker Greg Stumbo, and others were floated, but in the end, none stepped forward to challenge Conway. That’s what makes the lukewarm interest in Conway’s candidacy even more puzzling. There were plenty of opportunities for other Democrats to seek the nomination, but they all passed.

No one’s really expressed a theory as to why this happened, but I have one. Shortly before his death this spring, before the primary, former U.S. Sen. and Kentucky Gov. Wendell Ford endorsed Conway. Ford was the elder statesman for Kentucky Democrats. I think it’s entirely possible that the other politicians held off on running out of deference and respect for Ford’s memory.

The biggest question about next Tuesday’s race is if independent Drew Curtis will have any impact on the race. There’s no chance that Curtis can win, but he could play spoiler, drawing votes from one of the two partisan candidates. If he hurts one of them, would Bevin or Conway suffer the most?

One thing’s certain. For the first time in modern history, Kentucky will have a governor who hails from Louisville. This has some of Kentucky’s rural interests concerned. There’s a frequently heard refrain that state government neglects Louisville – an incorrect view, in my opinion – and there’s some worry that the new administration will favor Jefferson County over the rest of the state. Since much of the legislative leadership hails from rural areas, that may not be as much of a factor as some want to believe.

Something else to consider is the possibility that voters are turned off by the negativity of some of the campaign commercials. A couple of the candidates and the groups that support them must not have anything positive to say about themselves. Most all of their ads are critical of their opponents instead of listing their own qualifications and ideas.

What news coverage there has been of the election has been very favorable to Conway. The press has been highly critical of Bevin, most recently when he got Medicaid and Medicare confused. That’s easily done; in fact, I do it frequently. But there’s been scant mention of Conway’s interference with the investigation of his brother on drug charges, or the recent revelation that his family has been involved in his sister’s messy divorce and the subsequent jailing of her husband.

Of the downticket races, the one that’s gotten the most attention is the attorney general’s race. Andy Beshear is running on his father’s name, and tapping into the massive pile of donor money that a sitting governor commands, yet still hasn’t pulled away from his young opponent, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Whitney Westerfield, in the polling. In fact, the most recent polls available as of this writing indicate that all of the statewide races are too close to call.

You might think the closeness of the races, coupled with the very real possibility that the Republicans could take a majority of the statewide offices for the first time in anyone’s memory, would result in a lot of attention and discussion. But that hasn’t been the case.  It’s possible that the early jockeying for position in next year’s presidential race has stolen some of the interest, but most of the pundits are attributing the quietness to what they perceive as flawed candidates.

Regardless, there are distinct contrasts between Matt Bevin and Jack Conway. They have very different backgrounds and vastly different visions of where they want to take the state. The issues facing Kentucky are too important to ignore. Our state faces a challenging time the next four years and beyond. If you want to make a difference and have a say in what happens, go vote on Nov. 3 for the candidate of your choice.

Just say “no” to open primaries

Over the past several months, I’ve seen an increasing number of calls for Kentucky to abandon its well-established system of selecting political party nominees in favor of a method that, in my opinion, would wreak havoc with the process.

While several other states have open primaries, in which anyone can vote in either party’s primary regardless of their voter registration preference, Kentucky uses a traditional closed primary. Only members of certain political party have a say in selecting that party’s nominees.

Most recently, John-Mark Hack penned a column in the Lexington Herald-Leader in which he had harsh words for both the Democrats and Republicans. In that column, he called for the establishment of open primaries in Kentucky.

Hack is a former Democrat who in recent years has been speaking out against casino gambling, which has been one of the primary policy recommendations of party leaders such as Gov. Steve Beshear. Although Hack’s been criticizing expanded gambling for years, he hasn’t really said if that’s the reason he left the Democratic Party.

(Full disclosure: I worked with Hack about 15 years ago when he was affiliated with the Governor’s Office for Agriculture Policy under the Paul Patton administration. That office was responsible for distributing the tobacco settlement funds. I worked for the former Revenue Cabinet at the time, and our agency played a primary role in that process, so I developed a working relationship with Hack, although our paths haven’t crossed since.)

I’ve never been a fan of the open primary process, mainly because I don’t like the idea of Democrats having a say in who the Republican nominees will be, or vice versa. Political parties should be free to choose their nominees without outside interference. There are just too many opportunities for mischief and mayhem.

In fact, that has happened a couple of times before, to both parties. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore was the presumed Democratic nominee. He wasn’t facing any serious challenges to his candidacy, and the GOP race was basically between George W. Bush and John McCain. It was well-known that the Democrats preferred to run against McCain. So, in certain open primary states, Democrats voted for McCain in the Republican primary in hopes of giving him the nomination.

Fast-forward to 2008, when it appeared that McCain had the Republican nomination wrapped up and Barack Obama was leading Hillary Clinton late in the race, Rush Limbaugh came up with his “Operation Chaos” to prolong the Democrats’ race. He was urging Republicans to vote for Hillary in the hopes that it would prolong the primary race.

Taking the open primary concept one step farther, remember that next year, Kentucky Republicans will caucus to choose their presidential nominee. Should Democrats be allowed to participate in the Republican caucus?

One reason offered for open primaries is that some feel closed primaries disenfranchise independents and those registered in other parties. This isn’t the case at all. An independent is on the ballot in Kentucky’s gubernatorial race this year. And there will probably be several third-party candidates running for president next year. Independents and third-party voters will have plenty of opportunities to cast a ballot – just not in a partisan primary. Parties should be allowed to select their own nominees without the influence of outsiders.

People may decry the two-party system that has developed in American politics – and I’m a bit critical of it myself, seeing that the leadership of the party to which I belong is so far removed from its grassroots that I tend to refer to myself by ideology rather than by party registration – but independents and third-party voters still have a great say in who wins elections, and those candidates sometimes emerge victorious. In fact, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent, although he’s running in the Democrat presidential primary. Opening up partisan primaries to all voters won’t diminish the impact of the two-party system, but it will do serious damage to the integrity of the nomination process. It’s a bad idea elsewhere, it would be a bad idea in Kentucky, and hopefully state leaders will just say “no” to the concept.