GOP presidential caucus: Is what’s good for Rand Paul also good for the party?

With the exception of my college years, when I voted by absentee ballot, my Election Day routine has been the same: Go to a location not too far from home, slip into a secluded corner and cast a secret ballot for the candidate of my choice.

But thanks to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s desire for a political safety net, that routine may be changing next year, and not necessarily for the better.

Paul, Kentucky’s first-term junior senator who was elected in 2010, recently announced his worst-kept-secret-in-America intent to run for president next year. He also wants to run for re-election to his Senate seat.

If he lived in a different state, that might not be a problem. In Wisconsin, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan was re-elected to the House of Representatives even as he was losing his vice presidential race as Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012. In Connecticut, retired U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman was re-elected despite also being on the ballot as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. And in Delaware, Joe Biden was lucky enough to win both the vice presidency and re-election as a senator in 2008. Guess which position he resigned?

Kentucky isn’t one of those states, though, and state law prohibits a candidate from running for more than one office on the same ballot. That poses a problem for Paul, who wants to pursue his presidential ambitions while at the same time being able to fall back on his Senate seat should he lose that race.

Our senior senator, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also has an interest in how this all unfolds. Although Paul’s seat is generally considered safe for Republicans, the GOP faces a challenge in keeping its newfound majority in 2016. The Senate seats up for grabs are in states said to be favorable to Democrats. The loss of a red state senator would be devastating, especially in McConnell’s home state.

Paul has explored multiple avenues for dealing with the situation. Originally, he sought to have Kentucky’s law changed to allow a run for president and a lower office simultaneously. A bill filed in the General Assembly last year by a supporter went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled House, and no attempt was made this year to push similar legislation. He also mentioned the possibility of filing a lawsuit to overturn the law, but that didn’t happen either.

The solution that has emerged, however, would on its face offer a solution to Paul’s quandary. Plans are in the works now for Kentucky Republicans to choose their presidential preference in a one-time-only caucus sometime in late winter or early spring, and then have primary candidates for other races on the ballot in the traditional May election. That would initially allow Paul to be a candidate for both offices without running afoul of the Kentucky Revised Statutes.

There are a lot of questions about how caucuses would operate, and who would participate.

Would they be held on a precinct or other local level, allowing voters to continue to cast their ballots close to home? Or would they take place by district or region, requiring participants to travel a significant distance to participate?

Voter turnout is abysmally low in most cases as it is. The Kentucky GOP gubernatorial race was one of the most exciting in memory, yet Tuesday’s turnout was microscopic. If voters are forced to drive an hour or more to attend a caucus, who other than die-hard supporters of certain candidates will take part? I know I’d hate to give up the better part of a day to have to drive to London, Hazard, Somerset, Pikeville or other location in my congressional district to participate.

And how will the process take place? Will votes be cast by secret ballot? Or will attendees be forced to make a public vote and risk retribution if they don’t support the right candidate? Since this process is being developed for Paul’s benefit, those of us who aren’t inclined to support Paul may be reluctant to publicly vote for Ted Cruz or any of a number of other candidates (announced or unannounced) who are better choices. There may also be the perception that the fix is in for Paul, also depressing participation.

What happens if Paul happens to win the GOP presidential nomination and also wins his senatorial primary? He still faces the you-can’t-run-for-two-offices-at-the-same-time problem, and there’s no guarantee that a lawsuit filed after the presidential nominee is chosen would be resolved by the time the November ballots are set. It’s unknown if Paul could drop out of the Senate race in favor of a Republican replacement. And with the national Electoral College map as hostile to Republicans as it is, there’s no way the GOP could forfeit Kentucky’s eight votes by taking Paul off the Bluegrass ballot.

That’s probably all a moot point anyway. Paul won’t be the Republican presidential nominee. The establishment usually gets its way, and it’s hostile to him. Paul also may face a backlash from voters who aren’t happy with his have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach. Some are already pointing to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who faces a similar situation but has decided to run only for president and forego any re-election bid.

Still, the caucus idea raises a lot of questions. Will it be good for Rand Paul? Definitely. Will it be good for Kentucky Republicans? That remains to be seen.

(H.B. Elkins is a former award-winning Kentucky community newspaper editor who now works in public relations. All opinions expressed are his own and do not represent the views of his current or any former employer. Reach him at hbelkins@gmail.com. Read more at kentuckyvalleyviews.blogspot.com.)

Jumping to conclusions: The most ineffective form of exercise

When a disaster happens, you can safely predict that those of a certain political belief will immediately start jumping to conclusions about what caused the incident and begin to blame those of the opposite ideology for not throwing enough money at the problem to have prevented it in the first place.

We saw our latest example of it last week, when an Amtrak train derailed near Philadelphia with deadly consequences. Before the last of those killed was recovered from the wreckage, Democrats were speaking in the halls of Congress, saying that cuts in infrastructure funding had caused the disaster and Republicans were responsible.

Meanwhile, Philadelphia’s mayor was cautioning the public not to rush to judgment about the cause of the crash when news began to surface that the train was traveling at speeds well in excess on of the speed limit at the sharp curve where the accident took place.

Guess what? The initial reports from investigating agencies reveal that the train was going 106 miles per hour, twice the recommended and engineered speed for the curve, when the derailment occurred. There’s also no evidence as of this writing that mechanical error caused it. That leaves only human error as the cause.  The engineer was familiar with the section of track where it happened, and there were signs in place to warn that the curve was ahead. A lack of infrastructure funding certainly can’t be blamed as the cause of this accident, especially since Republicans are generally amenable to infrastructure improvements if they serve the public good, are of a constitutional nature and don’t reek of political paybacks or pork-barrel spending.

Blaming this train wreck on infrastructure spending is like blaming a fatal car wreck on the road when the driver negotiates it at an excessive speed despite signs being posted.

This tactic isn’t new. Much of the recent noise from the braying left stems from the aftermath of the failure of a bridge carrying I-35W over the Mississippi Rive in Minneapolis, Minn. in 2007. That bridge collapsed under the weight of rush hour traffic and construction equipment. Although it had a sufficiency rating of 50 on a scale of 1 to 100, the major factor in its collapse, according to investigators, was a design flaw.

That event called attention to the condition of bridges across the state and country, and it also introduced scores of people to the terms “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete.” It also forced lots of reporters to try to explain to their audiences just what those terms mean, and to translate them from engineer-speak into plain English.

So it’s no surprise that when a bridge across the Skagit River on I-5 in Washington collapsed, the jumping to conclusions began again. Before investigators arrived on the scene, liberals started blaming a lack of infrastructure funding. And again, they were wrong. The query revealed that an overheight truck struck some of the overhead support beams on the truss bridge, causing it to fall into the river. Again, it was another futile exercise in worthless mental gymnastics.

Kentucky took note of this when an overwidth truck struck a support beam on the bridge connecting US 52 in Ohio to downtown Ashland. The bridge was closed immediately while repairs were made, and officials were grateful that the span didn’t collapse like the one on the west coast did.

There have been a couple of similar events in this area that also could have brought out the braying left, and in the latter case, it did. A year prior to the Washington state bridge collapse, a span of the Eggner Ferry Bridge carrying US 68 and KY 80 across Kentucky Lake in western Kentucky collapsed. The usual suspects didn’t have time to start their familiar chorus of cacophony, though, because this happened after dark and it soon became known that an ocean-going ship had used the wrong navigational channel and had struck the span.

And earlier this year, just across the Ohio River, a bridge at the Hopple Street exit over I-75 in Cincinnati collapsed. The bridge was being demolished because a replacement had been built, and the cause was determined to be a construction accident. Before the cause had been revealed, the left was already sounding its clarion call that a lack of funding was to blame. Sorry, wrong again, as usual.

It’s true that many of the nation’s public works are in need of repair or replacement. From road and bridges to water and sewer lines to schools, there are problems. But there’s also a lack of funds to fix them. The left continues to insist that money be spent on social programs, there’s a dearth of tax revenue available, and the public at large feels like they’re taxed to the max and can’t afford to pay any more. When conservatives try to cut social programs to pay for these projects, they’re cast as unfeeling. When they decline to raise taxes and take more from their constituents’ paychecks, which is also commendable, they’re painted with the same broad and unfair brush. Families have to make tough choices when their expenses exceed their incomes, but the government seemingly never has to. And the well of higher taxes has run dry.

It would be refreshing if, for once, the left would wait before the facts are known before they jump to conclusions. But the same constituency that cares so much about the public’s health that it wants to ban salt shakers at restaurants and Big Gulps in convenience stores seemingly can’t wait to get some exercise, ineffective as it is.

(H.B. Elkins is a former award-winning Kentucky community newspaper editor who now works in public relations. All opinions expressed are his own do not represent the views of his current or any former employer. Reach him at hbelkins@gmail.com. Read more at kentuckyvalleyviews.blogspot.com.)

Politics of personal destruction claims an innocent victim in Kentucky governor’s race

In the rough-and-tumble world of politics, we’ve come to expect that the participants are going to get a little bloody in the process.

After all, when the future of the city, county, state or nation is at risk, candidates are going to do what they have to do in order to win.

Very little is off the table. From families to businesses to associates, just about every aspect of a politician’s life is open to scrutiny. Barack Obama’s pastor’s anti-American remarks made from the church pulpit are fair game, as are Rand Paul’s son’s alcohol problems.

But sometimes, innocent third parties get caught up in the crossfire, as has happened in this year’s Kentucky Republican gubernatorial primary. When that happens, perhaps it’s time to rethink just how zealously we pursue our political ambitions.

For several months, a blogger named Michael Adams has been pushing rumors that Commissioner of Agriculture and GOP gubernatorial candidate Jamie Comer assaulted a college girlfriend. It appears that Adams first heard the allegations on Topix.com, a bulletin board-type website where people anonymously post rumors and gossip that may or may not be true. Adams started a blog critical of Comer, and he eventually published the name of the alleged victim. There’s no evidence that Adams was working at the behest of any of Comer’s opponents.

Other bloggers picked up on the story and also named the ex-girlfriend in question, but the rumor bubbled under the surface until a Lexington Herald-Leader story revealed that Adams had contacted the Hal Heiner and Will T. Scott campaigns to push his story. That brought increased attention to the tale and pushed it squarely into the mainstream media and to the forefront of the campaign.

Although Adams, other bloggers and mainstream media reporters had been contacting the ex-girlfriend in an attempt to get her on the record, she didn’t want to have any part in the gubernatorial drama. In fact, Adams even told the Herald-Leader reporter that she had told him to leave her alone. But when the story hit the mainstream, she obviously felt compelled to speak out.

She wrote a letter to the Courier-Journal in which she confirmed the allegations that Comer had physically abused her, along with dropping a few other bombshells that won’t be helpful to his campaign. The Courier-Journal published a story based on her letter, along with an admonition from Comer’s lawyer promising a “devastating lawsuit” should the story be printed. The C-J’s editorial and legal teams must have been confident in the truth of her statements, or they would not have subjected themselves to a libel suit.

Comer addressed the matter the following day in a press conference, strongly denying the allegations and again threatening legal action. One wonders who’ll be named in the suit. Michael Adams, who’s relentlessly pushed the story for months and has shopped it not only to Comer’s GOP rivals, but to Attorney General Jack Conway, who will be the Democrats’ nominee? Joe Gerth, the Courier-Journal reporter who wrote the story and from whom Comer refused to take questions at his press conference? Or will he go so far as to sue the alleged victim of his abuse?

By all accounts, his ex-girlfriend didn’t want to participate in any of this. She no longer lives in Kentucky, and except for a modest donation to Heiner’s campaign, has not been involved in the gubernatorial race. She was dragged into it against her will by a third party with an agenda. In doing so, she claims, Adams caused a lot of bad memories to resurface. Adams even acknowledges as much, making a snarky post on his anti-Comer Facebook page saying he’s grateful for Kentucky heroines, even those who live in other states “who hate me b/c of I have done them wrong.”

Is this what our political scene has come to? Someone who’s intent on tearing down a candidacy pulls an innocent person into the fray, revictimizing her again?

When the story hit the mainstream, Comer immediately blamed Heiner. When interviewed for the Courier-Journal story, Comer’s lawyer made remarks critical of the ex-girlfriend. How about blaming Adams, who pulled both the woman and the Heiner campaign into this mess?

Because of Adams’ actions, a young woman who just wanted to be left alone became the focal point of a scandalous story. That doesn’t serve the political process well at all.

(H.B. Elkins is a former award-winning Kentucky community newspaper editor who now works in public relations. All opinions expressed are his own and not those of his current employer. Reach him at hbelkins@gmail.com.)