GOP caucus: The guest of honor will miss the party

After the Republican Party of Kentucky announced its plan to hold a presidential nominating caucus, rather than a primary, to enable U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to run for re-election and for the presidency at the same time, there was always an undercurrent of thought that Paul wouldn’t even be in the running by the time his made-to-order caucus took place.

I hope those who predicted that outcome placed winning bets on the Super Bowl, because they were right on the money. Two days after the Iowa caucuses, Paul dropped out of the presidential race.

That leaves Kentucky Republicans with a Saturday, March 5 presidential caucus that was designed to benefit only one person who now won’t benefit from it at all. Paul’s name will still be on the caucus ballot, but a vote for him will be wasted.

The odds were good that Paul wouldn’t have won the Kentucky caucus. Although he touts his attendance record as proof that he’s working for Kentucky in the Senate, there are a lot of people in both parties who think Paul has furthered his own personal political ambitions during his Senate term and hasn’t acted in Kentucky’s best interests. At the time of this writing, no polling has been released about Republican voters’ preferences, but it’s safe to say that Paul wouldn’t be leading if polls had been taken. Excitement for Donald Trump in Kentucky seems to be on par with the rest of the country, and both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio seem to have generated enthusiastic followers in the Bluegrass State as well.

So, Paul’s departure from the race leaves Kentucky Republicans with a caucus that the party leadership never really supported, but approved as a favor to him. How do they feel now? Will they be inclined to grant him any more favors?

Some Republicans are still promoting the caucus as a good thing, saying it will make Kentucky relevant in the nominating process since the nominee has traditionally been all but chosen by the time of the normal May primary. But turnout for the Saturday caucus will likely be abysmal. In fact, not all counties are hosting a caucus. Republicans in nine of Kentucky’s counties will have to travel to another county to cast a vote, and there’s a rather egregious example of that in this region.

Owsley County chose not to have a caucus. Republicans there who wish to participate will have to travel to Lee County to vote. It’s only 11 miles from Booneville to Beattyville, but it will still be an inconvenience for Owsley residents who live in the far reaches of the county to drive to Beattyville. But the worst example is Estill County. Estill residents will have to travel the 27 long, torturous miles to McKee across a narrow, winding and hilly road to vote. Instead of combining with Madison or Powell counties, which are much closer and easier to access, Estill County instead will be caucusing with Jackson County. That makes little sense.

Absentee ballots are also an option, but the realistic view is that unless Republicans, especially those in counties not holding caucuses, are very fired up about a certain candidate, they’ll choose not to participate. The low turnout will be reminiscent of Kentucky’s 1988 participation in the “Super Tuesday” presidential primary, and the 2016 caucus will go down in history as a failed experiment that was of no help to the one person it was designed to benefit.

Paul’s campaign agreed to pay most of the costs of the caucuses, with candidate filing fees expected to take up the slack. Will he hold up his end of the bargain, or will the RPK be stuck with the bills? As this is written, no prominent Kentucky Republicans or party leaders have commented on the status of the caucus or on Paul’s withdrawal from the presidential race.

Some Republicans were concerned that Paul’s faltering presidential bid would negatively affect his Senate re-election campaign. Paul got a high-profile Democratic opponent last week in Lexington Mayor Jim Gray. Paul’s exit from the presidential race before the Kentucky caucus makes one wonder if perhaps his camp doesn’t regard Gray as more of a threat than they let on.

To date, Paul has not endorsed a candidate. Rick Santorum, who finished second to Mitt Romney in 2012 but failed to gain traction this time around, also withdrew from the race last week and endorsed Rubio. If Paul does endorse an ex-rival, we’ll have to see if that provides a bump for that candidate in Kentucky.

After the caucus was created at the insistence of Kentucky’s junior senator, I dubbed it the “GOPaulcus.” Now, the guest of honor at that party won’t even be in attendance. Bluegrass Republicans have to be a little embarrassed about that. And if some of them are angry, that’s justifiable, too.

Will the willfully ignorant doom our country?

Not a day goes by that I don’t worry about the future of our country. Too many people either refuse to face facts or remain willfully ignorant of what’s going on in the world. They remain so blinded by their own preconceived notions and ideologies that they turn their backs on the truth.

We’re nearly two decades beyond the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, yet it’s not hard to find someone who still claims that he was impeached over a (insert crude name for a sex act here.) That’s simply not true. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice because he lied under oath in a court case. He also lost his law license because of those actions, and I have yet to hear of anyone ever being disbarred because they engaged in oral sex.

That’s just one of many examples of people not comprehending the truth and therefore not being willing to face facts. Because they either like Clinton or they dislike Republicans, they continue to put forth a false narrative that too many gullible people believe.

Need another example? Look back to last week, when news broke that a federal court ruled that Kentucky cannot deny tax breaks to the Ark Encounter project being built in Grant County, and Gov. Matt Bevin’s administration announced it agreed with the ruling and would not appeal it. Answers in Genesis filed the suit after the administration of former Gov. Steve Beshear reneged on its commitment to offer the tax incentives.

The court decision did not set well within the militant atheist community. They immediately took to their blogs and claimed that the state would be spending tax money to promote Christianity; specifically the account of the Great Flood and the building of Noah’s Ark, and that this was a violation of the First Amendment’s “mandate” of separation of church and state.

Except this isn’t what’s happening at all. The state is spending no money on the “Ark Park.” Instead, it is granting tax incentives to the project to recoup some of the construction costs. The facility will merely not have to pay the full amount of taxes it otherwise would if not granted the incentives. Instead of the state getting X number of dollars in new taxes generated from the “Ark Park,” it will get X minus the money the park gets to keep for itself. The state will still see an increase in tax revenue from the project, just not 100 percent of the proceeds. Letting an entity keep more of its revenue for itself is not the same thing as spending tax dollars on it. No one else’s tax dollars will be spent on the project, not even any of those paid by the protesting atheists.

The First Amendment prohibits governments from establishing an official religion or from preventing anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. It does not require that government and religion be kept separate. The origin of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association is well-documented, but the flawed use of the phrase in interpreting the First Amendment has resulted in needless troubles for decades. The idea that the use of Bible verses in “A Charlie Brown Christmas” as performed in a Johnson County public school, the presence of a cross on a water tower in Wilmore or the presence of a picture of Jesus Christ in Breathitt County equals the government adopting Christianity as its official religion is a stretch of the largest possible magnitude.

Claiming that allowing Answers in Genesis and the Ark Encounter to keep some of the new tax revenue it generates that would otherwise go to the state is a First Amendment violation is a similar stretch. It might be different if tax money was being appropriated out of the General Fund to give to Answers in Genesis, but that’s not the case here. No money paid by anyone else is going to the “Ark Park.”

It’s fine if you have a philosophical disagreement with a politician. Heck, I have as many or more complaints about establishment Republicans and Congressional leaders as I do with President Barack Obama and others of the liberal mindset. You and I may have different opinions on abortion, Obamacare, national defense or any other issue. But if you’re going to criticize a specific action, you should do so on a factual basis. There’s an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

I heard that some people took exception to my recent column in which I described the criticisms of some of Gov. Bevin’s actions as being rooted in cluelessness. I stand by that statement. Just about every complaint I saw about Bevin’s executive orders cited a falsehood and relied on a complete misunderstanding of what actually happened, especially those comments made by non-Kentuckians who got incorrect information from national blogs and websites.

Feel free to disagree with Bevin’s rescission of the minimum wage increase for state employees, but don’t claim that his order took money out of the pockets of those who had already gotten the raise. Don’t like the decision to take county clerks’ names off of marriage licenses? Go ahead and complain, but don’t say that it discriminates against anyone or makes it more difficult for anyone to get a license.

Since those widely-misunderstood executive orders were issued last month, Bevin’s done even more to draw misguided ire from his opponents. Following through on a campaign promise, he started the process to do away with Kynect, Kentucky’s health care exchange which was established under the Affordable Care Act. That really prompted the cacophony of the clueless to go into full song, as they claimed that Kentuckians would lose their health insurance and thousands would die.

Kynect is just one source of health insurance. The federal exchange and website remain, as do private insurance agents. Saying that people will no longer have access to health insurance once Kynect is gone is like saying people will starve if one grocery store closes. There are other grocery stores, and there are other marketplaces for health insurance.

Again, it’s all right if you have an ideological difference with the new governor. I don’t agree with all of his plans and policies and philosophies. But please, if you’re going to criticize a specific action, do it from a factual base. Don’t make up stuff or claim things that aren’t true. Educate yourself on the issues. Seek alternative news sources besides those that reinforce your views. Look beyond your preconceived notions or ideological persuasions. Don’t be willfully ignorant or intentionally clueless. Healthy debate is good for society, but only if all the debaters are knowledgeable.

Can the Trump train be derailed?

(Note -- this was written and submitted to newspapers in my area in mid-January, well before the Iowa caucuses.)

Several months ago, I made a couple of political predictions.

First was that the novelty of Donald Trump as a Republican presidential candidate would fade, and he would fall from contention for the nomination as other candidates ramped up their campaigns.

Second was that as usual, the Republican establishment’s favored candidate – in this case, then-perceived frontrunner Jeb Bush – would end up with the nomination instead of a conservative or outsider candidate.

It looks as if I could be wrong on both counts. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Bush’s candidacy is washed up and going nowhere. And it’s looking entirely possible that Trump could end up winning the nomination.

That latter fact has the GOP establishment frightened to death. They keep saying Trump is unelectable in a general election matchup against Hillary Clinton, but that’s just a front. Their real fear is that they are losing influence over the party, its members and the selection process for candidates.

That’s why the establishment has also turned its guns on Ted Cruz, who has emerged as Trump’s stiffest competition. Seeing that Bush’s fortunes are ebbing, the party’s elites are starting to throw their support to Marco Rubio. At one time a conservative favorite alongside Cruz, Rubio’s stands have alienated many in the party’s base as he’s seemingly started to move to the left on some issues, particularly immigration. Rubio has disappointed many who had high hopes for him when he, Cruz, Utah’s Mike Lee and Kentucky’s Rand Paul went to the Senate as conservative voices to stand against the liberals in both parties.

No matter what outrageous comment Trump may make, and no matter what barbs his rivals throw his way, he seems to be unscathed. In recent weeks Trump has taken flak over his comments on Muslims, but his message continues to resonate with an American public that sees the rise of ISIS and an increase in Islamic terrorism on foreign soil and in the United States and increasingly feels the federal government is not doing enough to stop it. They also see the evidence that the economy isn’t as rosy as President Barack Obama makes it out to be, and they worry about their jobs. They see ineffective politicians in both parties and want someone new to deal with the myriad of problems this country faces.

After last week’s Republican debate in South Carolina, many political observers noted that they think the race is down to three candidates – Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Of course, this is before the first vote is cast in an election or a caucus. Rubio will have the establishment’s support, while Trump and Cruz will split the vote among those who don’t fall in line with what the party’s elders dictate. Cruz will dominate among constitutional conservatives, while Trump will continue to appeal to those who want a complete outsider. If Trump finally does flame out or commit political suicide – and so far, he seems invulnerable to any damage, even the self-inflicted kind – what will become of his supporters? Will they migrate to Cruz, or will they flock to another outsider such as Carly Fiorina or Dr. Ben Carson, assuming they’ll still be in the race?

And what of the Democrats? Bernie Sanders is proving to be a pest that Hillary Clinton can’t get rid of, like a fly that keeps buzzing around her head. Hillary will never be confused with a conservative, but she’s been campaigning to the right of Sanders lately on a number of issues. She’s having to walk a fine line between keeping her liberal constituency happy while at the same time distancing herself from the impossible pie-in-the-sky proposals Sanders makes.

There’s also rich irony in last week’s announcement that Moveon.org has endorsed Sanders over Hillary. Remember that this is the same group that was formed to support her husband during his impeachment proceedings. That comes as Hillary is starting to get more criticism from those who claim she’s hypocritical by campaigning on so-called women’s issues while at the same time criticizing those who accused her husband of untoward sexual advances and acts.

Also, who knows what will come of the ongoing investigation into her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state? A growing number of legal scholars think she will be prosecuted – and some predict a showdown between the FBI, which will push for criminal charges to be filed, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who will push back against that effort. An unflattering movie about her involvement in the Benghazi fiasco won’t help matters for her.

What can the Democrats do if her candidacy collapses? What if she does come under indictment for the email scandal? Sanders generates the same feelings among the Democratic establishment as Trump does for the GOP. The best alternate candidate, Vice President Joe Biden, opted out of a run for the presidency, but he continues to publicly second-guess that decision. Might he suddenly emerge as his party’s savior?

The conventions are still months away. Lots can happen. And, as noted earlier, the first vote has not yet been cast. And with the frontrunners (Trump and Hillary) having their own unique vulnerabilities, the political landscape can change dramatically in a matter of minutes. Still, Hillary has shown herself to be coated in Teflon despite lots of faults, and so far Trump hasn’t been knocked off his game either by himself or by one of his opponents.

Buckle up, political junkies. The ride’s about to get interesting.