When I was growing up and in school, one of the surest ways to spark an argument was to ask a fellow student if they were a Democrat or a Republican. Never mind that back in our school days, none of us really knew what either party stood for. We were what our families were. If a Republican asked a fellow Republican, all was well. But if a Republican asked a Democrat, some pretty good verbal sparring was likely to ensue.
Over the past several years, the Kentucky Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging registered voters. Each month, the Republican Party of Kentucky releases updated voter registration numbers from the State Board of Elections. Those figures have consistently been showing voters switching parties and new voters registering as Republicans. It's typical for Republicans to show +2,500 voters, Democrats to show -1,500 voters, and independents only around +250 or so. It's clear that Democrats are fleeing their party and becoming Republicans at an amazing rate.
There's a name for the transition. It's called the #WalkAway movement and the "#WalkAway" hashtag pops up from time time to time on social media. That movement is on fire in Kentucky.
I grew up in a Republican county, so I had more friends to agree with than to argue with, but that wasn't the case in most places in Kentucky in the 1970s. Back then, Democrats outnumbered Republicans statewide around 2:1. Voter registration was around 60 percent for the D's, around 30 percent for the R's, with independents making up the remainder. The GOP held power in the state only in the swath of south-central, east-central, and southeastern counties that made up the old Fifth Congressional District that was represented for years by Tim Lee Carter and then Hal Rogers. When Kentucky lost a congressional seat in the 1990s, Democrats controlled both houses of the General Assembly and the governor's office, and thus tried to gerrymander Rogers out of his seat by putting him in a district consisting mostly of old Seventh District counties where the late Carl D. Perkins had been in Congress seemingly since Noah put the animals two-by-two on the Ark. It didn't work. One might look to Rogers holding onto his seat when thrust into politically hostile territory as a sign of what was to come.
Lots has changed on the Bluegrass political landscape since those days. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who got elected in 1984 by upsetting the Democrat incumbent, was building the state GOP. First through party switches and then at the ballot box, Republicans took over the state Senate. Ernie Fletcher broke through in 2003 to become Kentucky's first Republican governor in 32 years, defeating the grandson of legendary Democrat A.B. "Happy" Chandler to do so. After eight years of Steve Beshear, Matt Bevin took the governor's office back for the GOP in 2015. And finally, the following year, after a couple of close calls, the Republicans flipped the House of Representatives and earned a supermajority in the process.
Now, the GOP dominates the federal delegation, with five of six representatives, plus both senators. For the first time, there are more Republican county judges-executive than Democrats. After twice giving Kentucky's electoral votes to Bill Clinton, the Bluegrass State has gone for the Republican in the last five presidential elections. And for the first time, the GOP has a majority of the statewide constitutional offices, with its eye on a complete sweep in next month's election.
What's amazing to me is how so many rock-ribbed Democrats have seen the light. After this state's suffering at the hands of Democrat control for so many years, they've decided they've had enough. It's gratifying to see so many of those hard-core Democrats with whom I argued politics back in high school turning into conservative Republicans. Even children of Democrats who were elected officials are abandoning the party of their parents. My own county judge-executive was a Democrat for years, and his father ran for that job 35 years ago as a Democrat. He changed parties and was elected last year as a Republican.
And it's not just them. One person I came to know years later was the daughter of a very powerful Democrat in her hometown. She, too, was a "yellow dog" for most of her life. But when I connected with her on Facebook and viewed her profile, I was shocked to see her political views listed as "Until Obama, Democrat."
It's obvious these people have seen Kentucky's past and who has been in control of state policies and purse strings for decades. They note our state's failures and know we can do better with the right people and philosophies in charge. Democrats have had the reins for years and have steered us in the wrong direction. They realize it's time for a change. They see Republicans putting new ideas and new energy into their local communities and national and state initiatives, and they want to be a part of the reversal and rebirth.
The national media has started referring to Kentucky as a Republican state -- or, given how they color presidential election maps, a red state. That's not wholly true yet. But we're getting there.
Don't be surprised if Republicans aren't the majority of registered voters in as little as five years, when enough people have finally walked away from the past policies that have held us back.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Democrats' positions on military force change with the seasons
It's been fascinating to watch the reactions to President Trump's decision to remove troops from Syria.
It could be foreseen that many Republicans opposed this move. What's surprising is how most Democrats have spoken out against it, as well.
The Republican opposition is consistent with the conservative view on military intervention, but the Democrats are reversing course on a position they've held for years.
Think back to the early 2000s. How many Democrats opposed the use of force in Iraq, and how many even opposed retaliating against Afghanistan and the Taliban for the Sept, 11, 2001 attacks on America? Democrats have consistently been in favor of a smaller American military presence in the Middle East, but when it comes to Trump, their opposition to him outweighs their traditional positions. Many who opposed the use of force in the past have done a 180 and are now decrying the pullout.
The Democrats basically drummed Joe Lieberman, their 2000 vice presidential nominee and a reliable liberal vote on just about every issue, out of their party because of his views on national defense and the use of force. He won his last senatorial election from Connecticut as an independent. Will they apologize to him and welcome him back into the fold because they've now adopted his position?
While Democrats usually remained united in their position on the issue until their recent pivot, there have always been two camps among the Republicans. Those who championed the use of force, such as John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and the late John McCain, were often called "hawks" or the oft-misapplied pejorative "neocons." But there's always been a vocal libertarian-leaning contingent, including Kentucky's own Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, that has been opposed to the use of force in distant lands and have been loud "bring the troops home" advocates.
That's what most of the Democrats have been saying for years, too, until Trump did exactly that. Because Trump supported it, they suddenly had to oppose what they had been advocating.
But what's really been funny to watch is how the Democrats have turned on one particular presidential candidate who agrees with Trump's decision and the "bring the troops home" position in general.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (she of the Jackson County, Ky., Gabbard lineage) is a down-the-line liberal on just about every issue they hold dear. But when she declined to condemn the withdrawal from Syria and expressed her support for the concept of ending American engagement in the Middle East, her fellow Democrats lost it. Hillary Clinton, in particular. Proving that she obviously hasn't gotten over losing the presidential election in 2016 and clinging to the belief that Trump was elected fraudulently (hint: he wasn't), she made allusions to Gabbard being "a Russian asset," and her spokesperson didn't deny she was talking about Gabbard when asked directly.
That's indicative of where many Democrats are today. They see Russians behind every tree. In Kentucky, they're even making Russia an issue in the governor's race because a proposed aluminum mill in the northeastern part of the state will have Russian investors. They've come a long way from 2012, when Mitt Romney said Russia was America's greatest threat and Barack Obama basically laughed him off.
Hillary, in particular, is a lost cause. She still can't accept that she's been twice rejected in her attempt to win the highest office in the land, once by her own party. I know of no one who voted for Trump because of Russian interference. They either voted for him because they liked what he was saying, or they saw through Hillary for what she was, or some combination of both. She thinks Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a Russian plant in 2016, and thinks Russia's grooming Gabbard to mount a third-party challenge after her inevitable departure from the Democrats' race. Either Hillary has forgotten that a lot of states have passed "sore-loser" laws that prohibit party primary candidates from running as an independent or third-party candidate in that same election, or she knows but chooses to ignore it since it doesn't fit her narrative. And now the whispers are starting once again that she's thinking about mounting yet another presidential bid. Gabbard even dared her to do so.
I can hear Donald Trump saying, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch," all the way from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the foothills of eastern Kentucky over that notion.
The idea that Gabbard is a Russian asset is beyond laughable. She serves in the Hawaii National Guard and has been deployed on combat missions in the Middle East. Sure, she's as much of a socialist as any of the rest of the presidential candidates on that side, but the notion that she's a Russian asset is just deranged. And only a few of her fellow presidential candidates have defended her from Hillary's goofy pronouncement. They were quick to admonish others not to talk about Joe Biden's Ukraine situation, but questioning Gabbard's patriotism wasn't a problem for them.
The Syrian situation has been fluid. It's complicated, and volumes have been written about it. Turkey and the Kurdish rebels have been battling for years. The Kurds helped us in the fight against Islamic terrorists, but the Turks are a NATO ally. At this writing, a cease-fire has been orchestrated. Trump was in a classic no-win situation here. Withdraw the troops, and we've abandoned a partner in the war on terror. Keep them there, and we're putting them in harm's way with no discernible American interest. Trump had campaigned on ending America's endless wars, and his message resonated with Americans who saw our troops continue to lose their lives 17 years after the 2001 attacks with no sight of a finish line.
Still, it's really surreal to watch their positions change like the wind just because Trump took a position they've held for years. Should Trump change his mind, they'd probably change their minds about the issue as well.
It could be foreseen that many Republicans opposed this move. What's surprising is how most Democrats have spoken out against it, as well.
The Republican opposition is consistent with the conservative view on military intervention, but the Democrats are reversing course on a position they've held for years.
Think back to the early 2000s. How many Democrats opposed the use of force in Iraq, and how many even opposed retaliating against Afghanistan and the Taliban for the Sept, 11, 2001 attacks on America? Democrats have consistently been in favor of a smaller American military presence in the Middle East, but when it comes to Trump, their opposition to him outweighs their traditional positions. Many who opposed the use of force in the past have done a 180 and are now decrying the pullout.
The Democrats basically drummed Joe Lieberman, their 2000 vice presidential nominee and a reliable liberal vote on just about every issue, out of their party because of his views on national defense and the use of force. He won his last senatorial election from Connecticut as an independent. Will they apologize to him and welcome him back into the fold because they've now adopted his position?
While Democrats usually remained united in their position on the issue until their recent pivot, there have always been two camps among the Republicans. Those who championed the use of force, such as John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and the late John McCain, were often called "hawks" or the oft-misapplied pejorative "neocons." But there's always been a vocal libertarian-leaning contingent, including Kentucky's own Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, that has been opposed to the use of force in distant lands and have been loud "bring the troops home" advocates.
That's what most of the Democrats have been saying for years, too, until Trump did exactly that. Because Trump supported it, they suddenly had to oppose what they had been advocating.
But what's really been funny to watch is how the Democrats have turned on one particular presidential candidate who agrees with Trump's decision and the "bring the troops home" position in general.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (she of the Jackson County, Ky., Gabbard lineage) is a down-the-line liberal on just about every issue they hold dear. But when she declined to condemn the withdrawal from Syria and expressed her support for the concept of ending American engagement in the Middle East, her fellow Democrats lost it. Hillary Clinton, in particular. Proving that she obviously hasn't gotten over losing the presidential election in 2016 and clinging to the belief that Trump was elected fraudulently (hint: he wasn't), she made allusions to Gabbard being "a Russian asset," and her spokesperson didn't deny she was talking about Gabbard when asked directly.
That's indicative of where many Democrats are today. They see Russians behind every tree. In Kentucky, they're even making Russia an issue in the governor's race because a proposed aluminum mill in the northeastern part of the state will have Russian investors. They've come a long way from 2012, when Mitt Romney said Russia was America's greatest threat and Barack Obama basically laughed him off.
Hillary, in particular, is a lost cause. She still can't accept that she's been twice rejected in her attempt to win the highest office in the land, once by her own party. I know of no one who voted for Trump because of Russian interference. They either voted for him because they liked what he was saying, or they saw through Hillary for what she was, or some combination of both. She thinks Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a Russian plant in 2016, and thinks Russia's grooming Gabbard to mount a third-party challenge after her inevitable departure from the Democrats' race. Either Hillary has forgotten that a lot of states have passed "sore-loser" laws that prohibit party primary candidates from running as an independent or third-party candidate in that same election, or she knows but chooses to ignore it since it doesn't fit her narrative. And now the whispers are starting once again that she's thinking about mounting yet another presidential bid. Gabbard even dared her to do so.
I can hear Donald Trump saying, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch," all the way from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the foothills of eastern Kentucky over that notion.
The idea that Gabbard is a Russian asset is beyond laughable. She serves in the Hawaii National Guard and has been deployed on combat missions in the Middle East. Sure, she's as much of a socialist as any of the rest of the presidential candidates on that side, but the notion that she's a Russian asset is just deranged. And only a few of her fellow presidential candidates have defended her from Hillary's goofy pronouncement. They were quick to admonish others not to talk about Joe Biden's Ukraine situation, but questioning Gabbard's patriotism wasn't a problem for them.
The Syrian situation has been fluid. It's complicated, and volumes have been written about it. Turkey and the Kurdish rebels have been battling for years. The Kurds helped us in the fight against Islamic terrorists, but the Turks are a NATO ally. At this writing, a cease-fire has been orchestrated. Trump was in a classic no-win situation here. Withdraw the troops, and we've abandoned a partner in the war on terror. Keep them there, and we're putting them in harm's way with no discernible American interest. Trump had campaigned on ending America's endless wars, and his message resonated with Americans who saw our troops continue to lose their lives 17 years after the 2001 attacks with no sight of a finish line.
Still, it's really surreal to watch their positions change like the wind just because Trump took a position they've held for years. Should Trump change his mind, they'd probably change their minds about the issue as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)