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.

A victory for the First Amendment

One of the founding principles of the United States of America was the freedom for individuals and journalists to criticize the government. It’s not by coincidence that the first amendment made to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. Basically, journalists are to be free to cover and critique officials and their actions without fear of censorship or retribution.

That’s why it was alarming when an arm of Kentucky state government tried two years ago to stop the Lexington Herald-Leader from publishing a syndicated column written by North Carolina-based psychologist John Rosemond. Rosemond’s columns generally deal with parenting, and some advice he gave to parents of a recalcitrant child sparked this controversy.

Rosemond didn’t take that demand lying down. He filed a suit in federal court, and earlier this month he won his case in a ruling handed down by U.S. District Judge Greg Van Tatenhove, based in Lexington.

This decision is nothing short of a major victory for the First Amendment and for advocates of a free, unrestrained press. The idea that a state agency would try to silence a columnist or a paper that publishes the columns he writes is a direct affront to one of the basic tenets of this country.

What’s next? Should the state try to censor Ann Landers or Dear Abby? What about Miss Manners or relationship columnist Carolyn Hax? Should the government try to take Dr. Phil off of television or Dr. Laura off the radio? Shall it become illegal for experts to offer advice on gardening, car care, cooking or interior decorating?

There’s a special term used when a governmental body tries to regulate what appears in the press. It’s called “prior restraint” and it’s generally frowned upon.

As a student journalist at Morehead State University, I had my own run-in with an attempt at prior restraint. Late in my scholastic career, a local option election was held in Morehead. Rowan County had been dry since Prohibition, and a student leader sought to change that. The requisite petition was filed and the wet-dry vote was scheduled.

The board governing student publications, made up mostly of faculty members and administrators, issued an edict that the student newspaper’s editorial page was forbidden to offer an opinion in favor of or against the wet-dry vote. Given that MSU is a state school, a number of student journalists felt the publications board was overstepping its bounds by imposing an agency-mandated restraint on the newspaper. I joined some of my fellow journalism students in writing to Kentucky’s attorney general, asking if the board’s action was legal. The resulting attorney general’s opinion ruled that the board’s edict was an act of prior restraint by a government agency, and thus illegal.

The attempted censorship of Rosemond was done after someone complained to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology about one of his columns, in which he recommended that parents take away a teenager’s electronic devices and employ other disciplinary actions to deal with the child’s unruliness and bad grades. One component of the complaint was that Rosemond is licensed in North Carolina but not in Kentucky, and because of that his column should not be published in the Bluegrass State.

One big issue here is that Rosemond takes a more traditional view of parenting than a lot of new-age thinkers. He actually believes in discipline. He doesn’t think children should be spoiled or coddled. And that’s bound to upset those on the left who tend to populate the social science fields in governmental agencies. What could possibly be “unprofessional and unethical” about someone advising parents to ground their children if they misbehave or do poorly in school? Where I come from, that’s called “common sense” and “responsible parenting.”

This seems to be a classic case of someone trying to shut down the messenger because they don’t like the message. But fortunately for the concept of a free exchange of ideas in America, the government doesn’t get to decide who can say something and what they can say.

State officials say they are considering appealing Van Tatenhove’s ruling. The state psychology board was represented by Attorney General Jack Conway’s office in their attempted censorship of Rosemond and the Herald-Leader. The psychology board and Conway would be wise to take the spanking they got in court and move on. The First Amendment is not on their side.

Comer’s back, and so is his harshest critic

Many, me included, wondered what Kentucky agriculture commissioner, former state representative and unsuccessful 2015 gubernatorial candidate Jamie Comer would do after his loss in the spring race and the expiration of his term later this year.

Comer had pretty much decided to move back to his hometown of Tompkinsville, return to private enterprise and withdraw from the political scene, but a surprise announcement changed all that.

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, who represents Kentucky’s gerrymandered First District that stretches from the Mississippi River to the Appalachian foothills, declared his intent to retire from Congress after this term and not run for re-election. A day later, Comer announced a change in plans, saying that he plans to run for Whitfield’s vacated seat.

Even before Comer announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor, he was considered by many to be the front-runner in the race. But his campaign was plagued by the emergence of a third party whose sole goal in life appeared to be to torpedo Comer’s campaign and his political career. Armed with rumors of Comer’s alleged abusive relationship with a college girlfriend, a Lexington blogger named Michael Adams began a relentless assault on Comer’s character, his past and his performance as agriculture commissioner.

Although Adams was acting independently of any outside party or candidate, Comer blamed his antics on campaign rival Hal Heiner. The ex-girlfriend in question wanted no part of Adams’ efforts, yet he continued and she felt compelled to speak out after the Lexington Herald-Leader did a story on his allegations. The fallout, and particularly Comer’s handling of the situation, are thought by many to have resulted in his 83-vote loss to Matt Bevin in the gubernatorial primary. Bevin was able to slide through the Comer-Heiner divide to claim a surprising nomination.

It would be worth a political junkie’s time to search online for the Kentucky Roll Call analysis written by Lowell Reese on Sept. 25, in which he asserts that Comer’s campaign decided to make the abuse accusations public for a variety of reasons, which ultimately (in Reese’s opinion) sank his campaign.

But the question I had after Comer announced that he’ll be running to replace Whitfield was if we’d seen the last of Adams. Was he content to bask in his successful takedown of Comer’s gubernatorial aspirations, or would he reappear to continue his anti-Comer crusade?

It didn’t take long for that question to be answered. A day after Comer’s announcement, a Facebook page called “Comer for Congress” showed up online. Contrary to its title, it’s not a pro-Comer site. Instead, it appears to be one of Adams’ creations, as it links to a variety of Adams’ blog posts and other items critical of Comer.

This all makes one wonder: Why is Adams so vehemently against Comer that he’s going to show up anytime Comer runs for office? He originally started his anti-Comer efforts on the strength of the domestic abuse allegations, but later expanded his net to cover Comer’s management of the state’s industrial hemp program, some criminal activity by friends and other guilt-by-association innuendoes.

The press did a poor job looking into Adams and his motivation for his anti-Comer efforts during the gubernatorial primary. Since the First District is primarily rural (its largest cities are Paducah and Hopkinsville) and far-removed from the major metro areas of Kentucky (most of the region is in the Nashville television market), it’s doubtful the big-city reporters will do any investigation of Adams.

And once again, an innocent victim in all this mess – Comer’s college girlfriend – will be dragged into a discussion she never wanted any part of. The Kentucky Roll Call piece contains some disturbing assertions that private investigators were tailing her in New York City, where she now lives, and digging into her childhood and young adulthood in western Kentucky. Politics can be a vicious game, but innocent third parties should never be pulled into the battles, especially when they’ve stated over and over again they just want to be left alone.

Some have been quick to declare Comer the front-runner based on his name recognition and his performance in the GOP gubernatorial primary, but it’s premature to bet money on his nomination or election. Whitfield’s chief aide, Michael Pape, is also planning to run. Todd P’Pool, a western Kentucky local official who ran a statewide race four years ago, is mulling over the possibility and plans to announce his decision after the November election. And a liberal Kentucky blogger with contacts in both parties has posted that Sen. Mitch McConnell is backing another candidate’s entry into the race.

Tompkinsville, the county seat of Monroe County, has been a home to congressmen before. Dr. Tim Lee Carter represented the old Fifth District, Kentucky’s traditional Republican stronghold, for 16 years before retiring. He was succeeded by Hal Rogers, who was first elected in the old Fifth. But when Kentucky lost a representative after the 1990 census, and the congressional districts were redrawn to include Owensboro and Bowling Green in the same district in an ill-fated attempt to enable former Kentucky House Speaker Don Blandford to succeed Congressman William Natcher, Monroe County got moved from the Fifth District to the First District. And suddenly, a county in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains was placed in a district composed of flatland counties to the west.

Will Comer be able to follow in Carter’s footsteps? Probably not, if Michael Adams has anything to do or say about it. It will be interesting to see just how involved he gets in Comer’s congressional race, or if the information he dredged up during this year’s GOP gubernatorial primary comes into play.

Rumors and the role of the press

A discussion which recently started on Facebook and spilled over into the pages of my local newspapers made me think about the role of the press and caused me to recall a situation I encountered years ago.

Two things small towns are famous for are gossip and rumors. There’s an old saying that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. Nowhere is that more true than in a small community where “news” travels fast and everybody knows everybody else.

When the media gets wind of these rumors, what should reporters do? Especially when there is nothing to substantiate the tales? No evidence, no proof, no nothing? Only someone who says they heard it from someone who heard it from someone else who swears that it’s so?

The press works under a number of ethical and legal restraints. Reporters typically won’t run with a story unless they have tangible proof of its truth. Libel laws exist for a reason. No journalist worth his or her salt will knowingly print or broadcast falsehoods because there’s a severe financial price to pay for doing so.

In the case mentioned above, someone repeated rumors that an FBI investigation of at least one local elected official is underway. The target of these rumors has, like all public officials, made some political enemies. Gullible people – and let’s face it, a large percentage of the electorate is gullible – will believe such rumors without an ounce of proof to back them up. And such is the case in this instance. No one has come forward with credible evidence to prove such an investigation exists.

So, does the press have a duty to report on the existence of these rumors? Should journalists try to confirm them?

It’s reminiscent of a situation I faced more than a dozen years ago when I was the editor of a community newspaper. There were incessant rumors that a local elected official had been arrested in Lexington on serious drug charges. The rumors spread like wildfire, and more and more people were demanding that my newspaper cover the story. They accused us of covering up a heinous crime, yet they could offer no proof of their accusations. They’d heard it from someone who’d heard it from someone who’d heard it from someone else.

Today, if someone is arrested, you can find out about it almost instantaneously on the Internet. There are several websites that prominently feature mug shots of people who are booked into jails, and it usually doesn’t take long for them to hit cyberspace. Many jails actually have prisoner listings available online.

Back then, though, things were different. The Internet wasn’t as advanced as it is now. So it took a little old-fashioned sleuthing to determine the facts of the matter.

One big red flag was that the Lexington Herald-Leader had not reported on the alleged arrest. The arrest of a local official in the paper’s circulation area on a major drug charge would be big news. When the mayor of the town where I was working was arrested for driving under the influence while on his tractor, the Herald-Leader assigned a reporter to do a story – and as was customary back then, the daily reporter checked with the local newspaper for information. The H-L hadn’t checked in about this matter.

Finally, after the umpteenth person demanded that we do the story and berated us for covering up the truth, I made a few calls to Lexington. It didn’t take long to determine that the event that so many people were absolutely, positively sure had occurred had never happened at all.

What did I do? I wrote a column about it. In that column, I stated that I had spoken with the appropriate authorities in Fayette County and there was no record of the arrest so many claimed happened. And I challenged the public to either provide concrete, judgment-proof evidence of their accusations or to kindly shut up.

Not only did that silence those who kept insisting that the paper cover this non-story of a story, but I heard later from the official in question (whom I’d never met) that my screed had helped quash the rumors that had even caused his children to be harassed at school.

The FBI is notoriously tight-lipped about their investigative activities. Often, they won’t even confirm or deny that a probe is underway. And it’s not likely that a target of an investigation is going to admit that bit of information. Often in these cases, the target is not even made aware of the investigation until it’s nearing its conclusion. In those cases, the agents are looking to see if the subject will confirm what they already know, or if they can add a charge of lying to the FBI to whatever else is going to be on the indictment. So, it’s ludicrous to expect a reporter to ask an official if they’re under investigation.

So, this is my advice to those who want to spread rumors about investigations into official misconduct: Prove what you’re saying. If an FBI agent has given you a business card, take it to the newspaper office and play show-and-tell. Tell a reporter the date, time and place you were interviewed. If you’ve been subpoenaed to testify somewhere, give a journalist a copy of the subpoena. If you don’t have proof, then don’t allow yourself to become a tool of someone with a political agenda who’s trying to tear down their enemies. You may not like a certain politician, but don’t stoop to telling lies and spreading unfounded rumors about them.

Truth is an absolute defense for libel where a public official is concerned, and no newspaper I know of will shy away from publishing negative news about a politician if it can be proven. However, people shouldn’t expect the press from joining in on character assassination when there’s nothing to back up those claims.