As someone with two degrees in journalism, and someone who worked as a newspaper reporter and editor for nearly 15 years, I believe I'm as well-qualified as anyone to critique the news industry. Even before my ideological awakening in the 1990s, the biases inherent in most news coverage were apparent. Once I became aware of what to look for, it's even more obvious.
When you look at the way the mainstream press treats Democrats and liberals, as opposed to Republicans and conservatives, how can you not conclude that the mainstream press plays favorites and has an agenda? The ongoing coronavirus situation has provided ample proof.
Even before the "kung flu" Wuhan Chinese virus became a factor, it was noticeable. Contrast how the Washington press corp treated Barack Obama and the way it treats Donald Trump. Or in Kentucky, look at how Ernie Fletcher and Matt Bevin were scrutinized vs. the coverage of Steve and Andy Beshear.
For several weeks, with only a few exceptions, Gov. Andy Beshear has conducted a daily briefing and press conference. He gets free air time all across Kentucky on multiple television stations. A handful of reporters are present. After the governor leads everyone in a ritualistic chant of "We will get through this; we will get through this together," rah-rahs and praises those who are taking his orders and recommendations to heart, gives a briefing on new COVID-19 cases, and has staffers give updates on connected issues such as unemployment filings, he takes questions from the smattering of reporters in the room. There's always a deferential air from the press corps. There are no raised voices, no hostility, no "gotcha" questions -- no hard questions at all, really. The assembled "journalists" are really acting as little more than stenographers, relaying the governor's message unchallenged.
When you see members of the press adding phrases like "Stay Home" or putting cute little mask emojis in their Twitter handles, or urging viewers to "stay healthy at home" when they sign out of newscasts, you know they aren't interested in questioning the government, but instead acting as adjunct press secretaries.
Contrast that with the briefings and press conferences held by President Trump. Reporters are hostile. They're antagonistic. They shout and yell. They raise questions on subjects totally unrelated to the coronavirus. They do not behave in a respectful manner. The White House correspondents certainly don't act like their Frankfort counterparts. Is it possible that the political party of the executive has something to do with it?
Remember how former Gov. Bevin was treated by the press? He certainly didn't get the respect that Andy Beshear is getting. Even now, with Bevin out of office, reporters seem to take a perverse joy in attacking him.
Since Gov. Beshear ordered businesses closed, instituted travel bans and prohibitions on gatherings, criticized other states for not closing up shop the way we've been made to do, and told Kentuckians to stay home unless absolutely necessary, at least three troublesome rumors have circulated. One of them seems to have some evidence to back it up, but the other two are merely speculation at this point. You'd think a competent and attentive press corps would ask him to address them, but so far nothing from the Joe Sonkas or Daniel Desrochers or Phil Pendletons of the world.
The first incident happened a few weeks ago, when various reports circulated that a state police detail took Beshear's daughter from the Governor's Mansion in Frankfort to a friend's house on Brownsboro Road in Louisville for a play date. This was at the height of the "Healthy at Home" edict when people were being told not to interact with others outside their households for social reasons. Indeed, the noncompliance reporting logs are full of entries of children from different households playing together.
The second incident centers on the controversial Memorial Day weekend rallies at the Capitol and Governor's Mansion. Even as protestors approached the mansion, it was being said that the governor and his family were not home at the time. Rumors swirled that they were vacationing in Florida; this after he had been frequently urging Kentuckians not to travel out of state to places that had reopened at a faster pace. Beshear stated in his briefing Tuesday, the first one after the incident, that his family was not home at the time, but he didn't say where they were, and no reporter bothered to ask where they were.
Finally, late last week, the state unveiled plans for restarting youth sports activities. Like most of the guidelines for reopening, they are limited with onerous restrictions. Included in the rules for youth baseball were admonishments against the popular travel baseball and softball teams that go to other cities, counties, and even states. Some intrepid online sleuth found out that not only is Beshear's son a member of a traveling baseball team based out of Louisville, but the squad is scheduled to play in Indiana later this summer.
Surely, with these rumors floating hot and heavy over social media, the press would ask the governor about them, right? Nope. Instead, they recently chased down an unfounded and unsubstantiated rumor that Bevin had fathered a child with one of his former staff members -- a rumor that was pushed (if not started) by the members of the pro-Beshear, anti-Bevin KY 120 United teachers group. This is the group, remember, that organized the illegal teacher sickouts to protest the efforts to preserve educators' pensions.
If the governor is constantly saying, "you can't be doing that," yet is doing the things he says others shouldn't do, would it not be incumbent upon the press to ask about those things? If reporters heard, and wrote about, the Bevin affair, surely they've heard the rumors about Beshear's hypocritical acts. Which is more newsworthy? A scurrilous personal rumor about a former elected official, or the possibility of the current governor adopting a "do as I say not as I do" philosophy?
But as long as the press corps acts as stenographers for the governor, answers won't be forthcoming. It may take citizen journalists filing open records requests for details about travel records to determine if state personnel took the governor's daughter to Louisville to play with a friend, or if a state aircraft and personnel were used to fly the governor's family to Florida. And even then, the press can't be counted on to do anything with the information others may obtain. During the Ernie Fletcher administration, bloggers uncovered evidence showing bias in the prosecution of him and his aides. Evidence of a compromised grand jury was known by the journalists of the time, yet they did nothing to bring that news to a wide audience. Only those of us who kept up with things through alternative sources knew.
In the meantime, we can expect the mainstream media to cheerlead for and relay every word uttered by Gov. Beshear and his staffers without question, while at the same time challenging everything said and done by President Trump and his administration. In this day and age of what everyone calls "the new normal," the old normal perseveres when it shouldn't.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Neglect of valuable assets hurts eastern Kentucky's economy
There's an ongoing discussion on the best way to improve the economy in some of eastern Kentucky's smaller, more distressed counties.
Some prefer a more traditional approach involving manufacturing and other familiar means. Others are advocates for tourism, particularly what's called "adventure tourism," as the best way forward to provide jobs and pump dollars into local coffers.
The debates over subjects such as allowing all-terrain vehicles on public roads, Sunday alcohol sales, and the possible development of a resort near Natural Bridge State Resort Park and the Red River Gorge have caused some hard feelings to emerge between proponents and opponents of those proposals.
Something needs to be done. All the media reports of a booming economy sound like fake news to many residents of the foothills and mountains. We're still waiting for the good times to arrive here. Our unemployment rates still run above national and state averages, our wages are still lower than what others earn, and prices for consumer goods like gasoline and grocery are much higher in our small towns and rural counties than they are elsewhere. We don't begrudge our friends and neighbors in the bigger cities their success. It's not a zero-sum game. There's plenty to go around. We'd just like to have a taste of it ourselves.
No matter which path local leaders take, this region has a couple of valuable assets already in place that could benefit both a production-based or tourism-based economy. Unfortunately, both of those assets are suffering from neglect and likely can never be used to their full potential.
What are they? The railroad and the river. Both have played vital roles in this area's past. But unless something's done soon, they are going to become only historical artifacts. One's pretty much already there; the other appears well on the way.
First, let's look at the railroad. The old L&N line was a major factor in the past success of the region. The railroad provided lots of jobs for people all the way from Winchester to Whitesburg. Although passenger service was long gone, the line remained a vital link from the mountains to the flatlands, with tons of coal being hauled well into the 2000s. Things have changed. The Kentucky River line has basically been mothballed. Most of the tracks in the yard in Estill County have been removed. CSX Transportation, which bought out L&N a few decades ago, is now using the tracks to store old rail cars that will eventually be cut up for scrap metal. What coal is being hauled out of the mountains now goes up the line paralleling the Big Sandy River, via a connection CSX made in Letcher County between the old L&N and C&O lines. Many of the historic depots have been torn down. CSX continues to maintain the tracks, but they aren't seeing any use other than when junk cars are hauled out and more are brought in to take their place.
The railroad could play a big part in both a production economy and a tourism economy. Not as much coal is being mined these days, but loggers are still cutting plenty of timber in the hills. Log trucks are notorious for tearing up highways. What if logs were moved by rail instead of highway? The new methods of petroleum drilling haven't made it to eastern Kentucky the way it has in neighboring West Virginia, but there's no reason oil or liquefied natural gas couldn't be moved by rail as well should there be another oil boom such as the area experienced in the early 1900s and again in the 1970s and 80s.
There's been talk of establishing tourist trains to take visitors from the Bluegrass area into the mountains. The opening of the Kentucky Rail Heritage Center in Ravenna ties into that idea nicely. Restoration of the existing depot buildings such as the one still standing in Beattyville could allow for a place for such an excursion train to stop on its way to Jackson, Hazard, and beyond. Imagine a passenger train heading into the hills, meeting a train still carrying coal or timber? It would be the best of both worlds, with railroad tourists revisiting the past while seeing that the rail line can remain a vital commercial link.
While the railroad is salvageable, the Kentucky River is beyond hope. The locks and dams that once made the river navigable up to and a bit beyond the spot where the North and South Forks meet in Beattyville have been closed, and in many cases, sealed. None of the locks beyond Frankfort are operational, and it's doubtful they could ever be put back in working order. Decades of malignant neglect, first by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and later the Commonwealth of Kentucky, rendered one of the area's great assets useless.
There were great hopes for Beattyville shortly after Lee County was founded in 1870. History books tell of grand dreams in which the town would become a natural resource capital and grow to possibly be the size of New York or Boston. Although loggers floated timber down the river to downstream mills, the hopes of growth for the town at the beginning of the river's main stem never materialized.
Now, it would be impossible not only for anything to be shipped downriver, but also for tourists to make the journey. Passenger boats are unable to make their way from the confluence down through the Palisades to the Ohio. Back before the locks were closed, a group of river advocates used to make an annual journey from Beattyville down to Frankfort to bring awareness to the stream's value to the communities through which it passes. Now, boats can only ply the pools in which they're launched.
There's a great tourist market that's gone forever unless the state somehow opens the locks back up. Imagine boarding a boat in Beattyville and heading through the rural countryside until you reach Irvine, then continuing on past historic Boonesborough, Clays Ferry and Valley View, Camp Nelson, the Wild Turkey distillery, tthrough the Palisades and under High Bridge, until you arrive at the capital city. Or how about the trip in reverse? Folks from the Bluegrass could take a boat tour along the river and end up at its origin, enjoying the views and the history made along the stream.
The state still operates the locks between Frankfort and Carrollton -- is anyone surprised -- but everything beyond Lock 5 near Lawrenceburg isn't really a river anymore, but instead is a series of long, narrow lakes. Kayakers and canoe operators can take their crafts out of the water and walk around most of the dams, but those in bigger boats are stuck where they are unless they want to load their boats up on their trailers and drive to a launching ramp in the next pool.
The river and the railroad are valuable assets for the communities through which they pass. Full use is probably gone forever for one of them. Locals need to fight to ensure the other remains viable. Surely, no matter what avenue we want our economic future to travel, all can agree that the river and the railroad are worthy of use and preservation.
Some prefer a more traditional approach involving manufacturing and other familiar means. Others are advocates for tourism, particularly what's called "adventure tourism," as the best way forward to provide jobs and pump dollars into local coffers.
The debates over subjects such as allowing all-terrain vehicles on public roads, Sunday alcohol sales, and the possible development of a resort near Natural Bridge State Resort Park and the Red River Gorge have caused some hard feelings to emerge between proponents and opponents of those proposals.
Something needs to be done. All the media reports of a booming economy sound like fake news to many residents of the foothills and mountains. We're still waiting for the good times to arrive here. Our unemployment rates still run above national and state averages, our wages are still lower than what others earn, and prices for consumer goods like gasoline and grocery are much higher in our small towns and rural counties than they are elsewhere. We don't begrudge our friends and neighbors in the bigger cities their success. It's not a zero-sum game. There's plenty to go around. We'd just like to have a taste of it ourselves.
No matter which path local leaders take, this region has a couple of valuable assets already in place that could benefit both a production-based or tourism-based economy. Unfortunately, both of those assets are suffering from neglect and likely can never be used to their full potential.
What are they? The railroad and the river. Both have played vital roles in this area's past. But unless something's done soon, they are going to become only historical artifacts. One's pretty much already there; the other appears well on the way.
First, let's look at the railroad. The old L&N line was a major factor in the past success of the region. The railroad provided lots of jobs for people all the way from Winchester to Whitesburg. Although passenger service was long gone, the line remained a vital link from the mountains to the flatlands, with tons of coal being hauled well into the 2000s. Things have changed. The Kentucky River line has basically been mothballed. Most of the tracks in the yard in Estill County have been removed. CSX Transportation, which bought out L&N a few decades ago, is now using the tracks to store old rail cars that will eventually be cut up for scrap metal. What coal is being hauled out of the mountains now goes up the line paralleling the Big Sandy River, via a connection CSX made in Letcher County between the old L&N and C&O lines. Many of the historic depots have been torn down. CSX continues to maintain the tracks, but they aren't seeing any use other than when junk cars are hauled out and more are brought in to take their place.
The railroad could play a big part in both a production economy and a tourism economy. Not as much coal is being mined these days, but loggers are still cutting plenty of timber in the hills. Log trucks are notorious for tearing up highways. What if logs were moved by rail instead of highway? The new methods of petroleum drilling haven't made it to eastern Kentucky the way it has in neighboring West Virginia, but there's no reason oil or liquefied natural gas couldn't be moved by rail as well should there be another oil boom such as the area experienced in the early 1900s and again in the 1970s and 80s.
There's been talk of establishing tourist trains to take visitors from the Bluegrass area into the mountains. The opening of the Kentucky Rail Heritage Center in Ravenna ties into that idea nicely. Restoration of the existing depot buildings such as the one still standing in Beattyville could allow for a place for such an excursion train to stop on its way to Jackson, Hazard, and beyond. Imagine a passenger train heading into the hills, meeting a train still carrying coal or timber? It would be the best of both worlds, with railroad tourists revisiting the past while seeing that the rail line can remain a vital commercial link.
While the railroad is salvageable, the Kentucky River is beyond hope. The locks and dams that once made the river navigable up to and a bit beyond the spot where the North and South Forks meet in Beattyville have been closed, and in many cases, sealed. None of the locks beyond Frankfort are operational, and it's doubtful they could ever be put back in working order. Decades of malignant neglect, first by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and later the Commonwealth of Kentucky, rendered one of the area's great assets useless.
There were great hopes for Beattyville shortly after Lee County was founded in 1870. History books tell of grand dreams in which the town would become a natural resource capital and grow to possibly be the size of New York or Boston. Although loggers floated timber down the river to downstream mills, the hopes of growth for the town at the beginning of the river's main stem never materialized.
Now, it would be impossible not only for anything to be shipped downriver, but also for tourists to make the journey. Passenger boats are unable to make their way from the confluence down through the Palisades to the Ohio. Back before the locks were closed, a group of river advocates used to make an annual journey from Beattyville down to Frankfort to bring awareness to the stream's value to the communities through which it passes. Now, boats can only ply the pools in which they're launched.
There's a great tourist market that's gone forever unless the state somehow opens the locks back up. Imagine boarding a boat in Beattyville and heading through the rural countryside until you reach Irvine, then continuing on past historic Boonesborough, Clays Ferry and Valley View, Camp Nelson, the Wild Turkey distillery, tthrough the Palisades and under High Bridge, until you arrive at the capital city. Or how about the trip in reverse? Folks from the Bluegrass could take a boat tour along the river and end up at its origin, enjoying the views and the history made along the stream.
The state still operates the locks between Frankfort and Carrollton -- is anyone surprised -- but everything beyond Lock 5 near Lawrenceburg isn't really a river anymore, but instead is a series of long, narrow lakes. Kayakers and canoe operators can take their crafts out of the water and walk around most of the dams, but those in bigger boats are stuck where they are unless they want to load their boats up on their trailers and drive to a launching ramp in the next pool.
The river and the railroad are valuable assets for the communities through which they pass. Full use is probably gone forever for one of them. Locals need to fight to ensure the other remains viable. Surely, no matter what avenue we want our economic future to travel, all can agree that the river and the railroad are worthy of use and preservation.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Pitching the tent for Act 2 of the DC circus
Those of us with discernment have long recognized the impeachment proceedings against President Trump for what they are: A partisan attempt by the Democrats to oust a president they know will be difficult, if not impossible, to beat in this year's election. Why else would many in that party have been looking for ways to impeach him even before he took office? And they chose to use the claims of a "deep state" federal employee who disagrees with his superiors' policies as the impetus to push this laughable move to subvert the will of the American electorate.
After the urgency with which the House Democrats moved the articles, saying Trump was a danger to American security and needed to be removed from office, they proved themselves to be hypocrites as Nancy Pelosi refused to hand them over to the Senate for action until she got certain concessions on how the trial would be conducted.
We've been told over and over again how the impeachment process was similar to grand jury proceedings, and that the impeachment is akin to an indictment. If that's the case, then Pelosi's shenanigans are no different than a grand jury foreman demanding that a trial be conducted according to his or her wishes.
Pelosi finally had to abandon her demands, but her ploy may have backfired. Developments change nearly daily in the matter, but as of now it appears that Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans may acquiesce to the Democrats' demands that additional witnesses who weren't heard during the House hearings be called during the trial, but with the caveat that Republicans can call their own witnesses. "Tit for tat," it's been described.
This is actually brilliant. If John Bolton or Mike Mulvaney are going to testify, then why not Joe Biden? After all, the whole thing started when Trump called for an investigation into Biden withholding U.S. funding to Ukraine until a prosecutor who was investigating his son was fired.
Funny how that works. Biden gets no scrutiny for his role in withholding American money -- in fact, this country's left and their accomplices in the mainstream media have defended that act -- yet somehow Trump's a bad guy because he supposedly withheld American money until Biden's actions were addressed.
And how about Eric Ciaramella, the all-but-acknowledged whistleblower whose complaints about Trump got this whole process underway? Shouldn't he be required to give an accounting of himself and why he felt Trump's acts were wrong?
Why not call Adam Schiff? It doesn't matter that he's one of the House managers for the trial. Prosecutors can also be witnesses, and there's evidence that Ciaramella coordinated his complaint with Schiff. Why did he go beyond any reasonable role a whistleblower might take and actively consult with a congressman who could push for impeachment?
The idea that this is anything akin to a criminal trial is absurd. Think back to the trial of Bill Clinton. There were no witnesses, only advocates. No evidence was presented. It was a foregone conclusion that there were not 67 votes in the Senate to remove Clinton, but Trent Lott rigged the process to guarantee that outcome. Had it been a real trial, Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress would have been Exhibit 1 for the prosecution. Democrats were happy with not having a real trial back then. Why have they changed their minds?
Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. You just might get it. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. There's no possibility of Trump being removed from office. Even if some of the spineless Republicans like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, or Susan Collins join the Democrats, there's no way they can get to a two-thirds majority to oust him. No one's mind will be changed in the Senate trial. In fact, the process has galvanized Trump's supporters in the electorate. Media reports stated that fully half of the crowd at his recent raucous Toledo, Ohio, rally was Democrats or independents. If anything, the impeachment and ongoing persecution of Trump has turned him into a victim.
If Democrats really want him out of office, there's an election this year. But they are increasingly coming to realize they don't have a candidate who can topple the incumbent. The socialism of Bernie Sanders and Fauxcahontas Warren, the bumbling corruption of Joe Biden, the warped views on spirituality and morality of Pete Buttigieg -- none of that can compete with a booming economy, new trade deals that benefit Americans first, withdrawals from one-sided treaties that don't advance American interests, and a foreign policy that targets terrorists while trying to cut back on American involvement around the globe and asking other nations to pull their own weight.
There's an added bonus to the trial's timing. Candidates such as Sens. Sanders, Warren, Amy Kloubachar, and Michael Bennet will have to decide whether they want to return to Washington to sit as jurors, or if they want to remain on the campaign trail as the Iowa caucuses and several primaries approach. The trial may take six days a week for as long as six weeks, longer if additional witnesses are called, so those senators face a dilemma. Do they allow Biden, the perceived front-runner, to maintain his lead or Buttigieg to make up ground? Or do Sanders and Warren in particular decide to forego the trial for their presidential aspirations?
As anti-climactic as the trial results are going to be, the event itself is worthy of the Big Top. The whole affair has been one big circus, and Act 2 may provide plenty of entertainment, even if the outcome isn't in doubt. Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages, let the show begin.
After the urgency with which the House Democrats moved the articles, saying Trump was a danger to American security and needed to be removed from office, they proved themselves to be hypocrites as Nancy Pelosi refused to hand them over to the Senate for action until she got certain concessions on how the trial would be conducted.
We've been told over and over again how the impeachment process was similar to grand jury proceedings, and that the impeachment is akin to an indictment. If that's the case, then Pelosi's shenanigans are no different than a grand jury foreman demanding that a trial be conducted according to his or her wishes.
Pelosi finally had to abandon her demands, but her ploy may have backfired. Developments change nearly daily in the matter, but as of now it appears that Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans may acquiesce to the Democrats' demands that additional witnesses who weren't heard during the House hearings be called during the trial, but with the caveat that Republicans can call their own witnesses. "Tit for tat," it's been described.
This is actually brilliant. If John Bolton or Mike Mulvaney are going to testify, then why not Joe Biden? After all, the whole thing started when Trump called for an investigation into Biden withholding U.S. funding to Ukraine until a prosecutor who was investigating his son was fired.
Funny how that works. Biden gets no scrutiny for his role in withholding American money -- in fact, this country's left and their accomplices in the mainstream media have defended that act -- yet somehow Trump's a bad guy because he supposedly withheld American money until Biden's actions were addressed.
And how about Eric Ciaramella, the all-but-acknowledged whistleblower whose complaints about Trump got this whole process underway? Shouldn't he be required to give an accounting of himself and why he felt Trump's acts were wrong?
Why not call Adam Schiff? It doesn't matter that he's one of the House managers for the trial. Prosecutors can also be witnesses, and there's evidence that Ciaramella coordinated his complaint with Schiff. Why did he go beyond any reasonable role a whistleblower might take and actively consult with a congressman who could push for impeachment?
The idea that this is anything akin to a criminal trial is absurd. Think back to the trial of Bill Clinton. There were no witnesses, only advocates. No evidence was presented. It was a foregone conclusion that there were not 67 votes in the Senate to remove Clinton, but Trent Lott rigged the process to guarantee that outcome. Had it been a real trial, Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress would have been Exhibit 1 for the prosecution. Democrats were happy with not having a real trial back then. Why have they changed their minds?
Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. You just might get it. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. There's no possibility of Trump being removed from office. Even if some of the spineless Republicans like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, or Susan Collins join the Democrats, there's no way they can get to a two-thirds majority to oust him. No one's mind will be changed in the Senate trial. In fact, the process has galvanized Trump's supporters in the electorate. Media reports stated that fully half of the crowd at his recent raucous Toledo, Ohio, rally was Democrats or independents. If anything, the impeachment and ongoing persecution of Trump has turned him into a victim.
If Democrats really want him out of office, there's an election this year. But they are increasingly coming to realize they don't have a candidate who can topple the incumbent. The socialism of Bernie Sanders and Fauxcahontas Warren, the bumbling corruption of Joe Biden, the warped views on spirituality and morality of Pete Buttigieg -- none of that can compete with a booming economy, new trade deals that benefit Americans first, withdrawals from one-sided treaties that don't advance American interests, and a foreign policy that targets terrorists while trying to cut back on American involvement around the globe and asking other nations to pull their own weight.
There's an added bonus to the trial's timing. Candidates such as Sens. Sanders, Warren, Amy Kloubachar, and Michael Bennet will have to decide whether they want to return to Washington to sit as jurors, or if they want to remain on the campaign trail as the Iowa caucuses and several primaries approach. The trial may take six days a week for as long as six weeks, longer if additional witnesses are called, so those senators face a dilemma. Do they allow Biden, the perceived front-runner, to maintain his lead or Buttigieg to make up ground? Or do Sanders and Warren in particular decide to forego the trial for their presidential aspirations?
As anti-climactic as the trial results are going to be, the event itself is worthy of the Big Top. The whole affair has been one big circus, and Act 2 may provide plenty of entertainment, even if the outcome isn't in doubt. Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages, let the show begin.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
New candidate filing deadline does a disservice to Kentucky voters
For years, one of the biggest complaints Kentuckians have had about the deadline for filing to run for seats in the state legislature was that it came too early in the General Assembly's biennial (now 60-day) session.
With the filing deadline in late January, but with the legislature not adjourning until April 15, most of the session occurred after senators and representatives knew whether or not they would have opposition. This, the reasoning went, gave them cover to vote on unpopular bills, knowing they wouldn't draw an opponent in the primary.
So what did the legislature do? Instead of pushing the filing deadline back until later in the session, they moved it up. Previously, the deadline was the last Tuesday in January, which was still far too early. Now, candidates have to file by the first Friday following the first Monday in January as a result of Senate Bill 60 passed by the General Assembly last year. . This year, that's Jan. 10.
This means that practically the entire 60-day legislative session will play out after legislators know whether or not they are guaranteed renomination. That gives legislators even more time to pass bad bills.
And plenty of them will be forthcoming. There are numerous anti-Second Amendment measures that have been prefiled, including some with bipartisan support. There's a proposal to increase the state sales tax to 8 percent. And no doubt, there will be another effort to increase Kentucky's gas tax, which -- sadly -- has been championed by some GOP representatives as well as so-called conservative groups like the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce.
Back before Kentucky adopted annual legislative sessions, an oft-heard bromide was that the state would be better off if the General Assembly met for two days every 60 years instead of 60 days every two years. The less time the legislature's in session, the less damage it can do to your freedoms and your paycheck.
Now, the Republicans who hold the majority in both chambers will have even more time to wreak havoc and work mischief to the detriment of the state's taxpayers. If the deadline had been pushed back to the end of the session, legislators would have to look over their shoulders with every vote, fearful of angering constituents and attracting an opponent.
Under the new system, the field of candidates will be set before the first week of the 2020 session concludes. This doesn't bode well for those of us who saw what happened two years ago with the services tax, which outraged voters in both parties. Would the Senate and House of Representatives have overridden former Gov. Matt Bevin's veto if members had known it might make them vulnerable to a primary challenge? Possibly not -- which may be why they moved the deadline up. Incumbents are usually all about self-protection, and this is another good example.
I don't recall any discussion on this legislation when it was under consideration, and I certainly never heard any good arguments for its passage. What was the rationale? This move is a disservice to Kentucky voters and taxpayers. In the end, it provides yet another good example of how the GOP's "new majority" in the legislature hasn't been the huge success we hoped for when we finally flipped the House and gave Republicans control.
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Beshear's position on fraudulent teacher sick day use provides another test for Daniel Cameron
It's the first Sunday of April, and Tommy Teacher is sitting at home in the afternoon, enjoying the day, when his phone rings.
On the other end is a friend of his with an offer.
"Hey, Tommy, I have tickets to the Reds Opening Day game tomorrow. They're right behind the visitors' dugout, five rows back. Want to go?"
Tommy's been a lifelong Cincinnati Reds fan. It's an offer that's too good to be true. Of course, there's one big problem. He has to work the next day. School is in session.
But he comes up with a solution.
"Sure," he tells his friend. "I'll drive and I'll pick you up at 8 in the morning."
Then he calls his school principal.
"I'm sick, and I won't be at work tomorrow. Can you call a sub for me?"
So, Tommy Teacher calls in sick, despite feeling just fine. And instead of going to school on Monday, he heads north across the river to watch the Reds open up what will probably be another disappointing season.
Is that right? Is that even legal? Kentucky's new governor thinks it is.
Something similar happened during last year's legislative session, but instead of going to ballgames, Kentucky teachers called in sick by the hundreds to go to Frankfort to protest pending legislation. So many teachers fraudulently called in sick in some school districts that superintendents were forced to cancel classes those days.
Common sense indicates that this is an inappropriate use of sick leave. Various state laws do as well.
Public school employees are paid with tax dollars, the same as state employees. There are definitive policies and guidelines for state workers on how leave time is to be used. Sick leave is reserved for specific purposes. Sudden illnesses, scheduled medical appointments, caring for sick relatives, and bereavement are the allowed uses for sick leave. If a state employee wants to be off for other reasons -- say, to attend a ballgame or go to Frankfort to protest something -- they are required to use annual leave (the state's term for vacation) or accrued compensatory time. Improper use of sick leave is against both state law and agency policy. Employees who do so are subject to discipline, which can range from a verbal or written reprimand to suspension or even dismissal.
On New Year's Eve, Gov. Andy Beshear gave his blessing to the teacher sickouts, claiming they were protected First Amendment speech. He rescinded an earlier declaration by former Gov. Matt Bevin's Labor Cabinet that the sickouts were illegal. It's yet another instance of how he has pandered to the educational bureaucracy since he took office last month.
If teachers want to protest, good for them. They have an absolute First Amendment right to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They do not, however, have a right to improperly use sick days to take off work to go rally on the Capitol steps when they should be using personal leave. And if their school districts don't allow personal days, then they should be protesting at local board of education meetings to have them approved, as each individual district sets its leave policies.
The declaration by the Bevin administration amounted to a "don't do it again" scolding, because neither the Labor Cabinet nor the Department of Education decided to prosecute any teachers for the violations. (There was never any danger of individual school districts punishing teachers for their time and attendance fraud, because the administrators are sympathetic to the teachers' cause, and they even allowed some to take school buses to Frankfort for the rallies/protests.) Beshear's announcement gives them free rein to do it all over again during the upcoming session without fear of punishment or reprimand.
But this gives new Attorney General Daniel Cameron yet another opportunity to stand up for what's right. He can enforce the state's sickout and public employee time and attendance laws and regulations. He can certainly prosecute any teachers who call in sick but show up in Frankfort at protests. Whether he will or not remains to be seen. He can either make some sort of announcement as to how his office will handle the matter, or he can wait to see if it comes up during the 2020 legislative session and then act accordingly. It's yet another test of just how vigilant he will be in protecting Kentuckians from the bad policies of the new governor.
In the meantime, though, teachers have the green light to use their sick days for whatever reason they want. Go to a Reds game, as in our fictional example? Fishing? Deer hunting? An impromptu shopping or movie trip? A long weekend in Gatlinburg? It's all fair game now, thanks to a governor who would rather cater to a core constituency of his instead of enforcing the law and ensuring proper proper conduct by tax-paid public employees.
On the other end is a friend of his with an offer.
"Hey, Tommy, I have tickets to the Reds Opening Day game tomorrow. They're right behind the visitors' dugout, five rows back. Want to go?"
Tommy's been a lifelong Cincinnati Reds fan. It's an offer that's too good to be true. Of course, there's one big problem. He has to work the next day. School is in session.
But he comes up with a solution.
"Sure," he tells his friend. "I'll drive and I'll pick you up at 8 in the morning."
Then he calls his school principal.
"I'm sick, and I won't be at work tomorrow. Can you call a sub for me?"
So, Tommy Teacher calls in sick, despite feeling just fine. And instead of going to school on Monday, he heads north across the river to watch the Reds open up what will probably be another disappointing season.
Is that right? Is that even legal? Kentucky's new governor thinks it is.
Something similar happened during last year's legislative session, but instead of going to ballgames, Kentucky teachers called in sick by the hundreds to go to Frankfort to protest pending legislation. So many teachers fraudulently called in sick in some school districts that superintendents were forced to cancel classes those days.
Common sense indicates that this is an inappropriate use of sick leave. Various state laws do as well.
Public school employees are paid with tax dollars, the same as state employees. There are definitive policies and guidelines for state workers on how leave time is to be used. Sick leave is reserved for specific purposes. Sudden illnesses, scheduled medical appointments, caring for sick relatives, and bereavement are the allowed uses for sick leave. If a state employee wants to be off for other reasons -- say, to attend a ballgame or go to Frankfort to protest something -- they are required to use annual leave (the state's term for vacation) or accrued compensatory time. Improper use of sick leave is against both state law and agency policy. Employees who do so are subject to discipline, which can range from a verbal or written reprimand to suspension or even dismissal.
On New Year's Eve, Gov. Andy Beshear gave his blessing to the teacher sickouts, claiming they were protected First Amendment speech. He rescinded an earlier declaration by former Gov. Matt Bevin's Labor Cabinet that the sickouts were illegal. It's yet another instance of how he has pandered to the educational bureaucracy since he took office last month.
If teachers want to protest, good for them. They have an absolute First Amendment right to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They do not, however, have a right to improperly use sick days to take off work to go rally on the Capitol steps when they should be using personal leave. And if their school districts don't allow personal days, then they should be protesting at local board of education meetings to have them approved, as each individual district sets its leave policies.
The declaration by the Bevin administration amounted to a "don't do it again" scolding, because neither the Labor Cabinet nor the Department of Education decided to prosecute any teachers for the violations. (There was never any danger of individual school districts punishing teachers for their time and attendance fraud, because the administrators are sympathetic to the teachers' cause, and they even allowed some to take school buses to Frankfort for the rallies/protests.) Beshear's announcement gives them free rein to do it all over again during the upcoming session without fear of punishment or reprimand.
But this gives new Attorney General Daniel Cameron yet another opportunity to stand up for what's right. He can enforce the state's sickout and public employee time and attendance laws and regulations. He can certainly prosecute any teachers who call in sick but show up in Frankfort at protests. Whether he will or not remains to be seen. He can either make some sort of announcement as to how his office will handle the matter, or he can wait to see if it comes up during the 2020 legislative session and then act accordingly. It's yet another test of just how vigilant he will be in protecting Kentuckians from the bad policies of the new governor.
In the meantime, though, teachers have the green light to use their sick days for whatever reason they want. Go to a Reds game, as in our fictional example? Fishing? Deer hunting? An impromptu shopping or movie trip? A long weekend in Gatlinburg? It's all fair game now, thanks to a governor who would rather cater to a core constituency of his instead of enforcing the law and ensuring proper proper conduct by tax-paid public employees.
Friday, December 27, 2019
Flashback: Did Mitch McConnell, Paul Patton strike a deal?
With the upcoming Kentucky U.S. Senate race now front and center, and with allegations floating around that Mitch McConnell influenced former Gov. Matt Bevin to drop former Lt. Gov. Jeanean Hampton from his re-election ticket in favor of state Sen. Ralph Alvarado, it's time to look back two decades at a longstanding Bluegrass political question that has never been answered.
Did McConnell and former Gov. Paul Patton have some sort of deal in place to protect each other's political viability? That in exchange for the Republican Party not fielding a viable candidate against Patton when he ran for re-election in 1999, that Patton would not run for Senate against McConnell in 2002? The existence of such an agreement has been rumored for years, but no one has ever gone on the record to confirm or deny it. There might have been some -- gasp -- collusion or quid pro quo going on.
To examine the matter, let's go back to 1995. Patton was elected by slightly more than 21,000 votes over Republican Larry Forgy. The state GOP had not experienced its ascendency yet, so by the standards of the day, that was considered an extremely close margin. That race had some parallels to this year's gubernatorial election. Like 2019, the 1995 race was decided in Jefferson County. And like 2019, there were allegations of election improprieties. Unlike this year, though, criminal charges were actually filed against a handful of Patton's operatives and backers. That court case ended when Patton issued controversial pardons -- again, a parallel to this year -- for those charged.
Patton was the first Kentucky governor eligible to succeed himself in office. By the time 1999 rolled around, he had a record to either run on, or run from. And two of his positions had been quite controversial. He supported changes to workers compensation rules for employees injured on the job in a way that many felt negatively impacted coal miners' black lung claims. And he backed the removal of the community college system from the University of Kentucky's control, to be moved under a new umbrella covering community and technical colleges.
So, Patton was vulnerable. He even admitted after the 1999 election that he could've been beaten. So, you would have expected the Republicans to be chomping at the bit to finally claim the office that had eluded them so narrowly four years prior, and to win it back for the first time since Louie Nunn left office in 1971.
Again, the Republican Party was still in its ascendancy in Kentucky. The GOP had not firmed up its grip on the federal delegation, and control of the General Assembly was a distant dream back then. Forgy opted against another run at the office. But surely there was some strong Republican candidate waiting in the wings, who could have been backed by the McConnell machine that was gaining strength at the time.
Nope. No Republican with a legitimate shot of unseating a vulnerable incumbent stepped forward. Party leaders made no effort to recruit a viable candidate. The primary came down to a perennial candidate named David Williams who had switched parties (no relation to the future GOP state Senate leader) and a delightful but out-of-her-league lady named Peppy Martin. Martin won the nomination, but was no match for Patton, who cruised to victory. Martin is probably best known for wearing a prom dress to her election night event.
In retrospect, a look back at the election results shows just how susceptible Patton was to being beaten. Martin carried four predominately Republican counties in eastern Kentucky, but she also surprisingly won three counties in the coalfields (Perry, Harlan, and Letcher) that are Democrat strongholds. Patton's margin of victory in many other Appalachian counties, including his home county of Pike, was far less than one might have expected.
So why didn't the GOP field a strong challenger against Patton? Conventional wisdom of the day was that a Democrat running for re-election in Kentucky was guaranteed a victory, and that Republicans didn't want to run a potential future candidate's political outlook by sacrificing him or her to an incumbent. Contrast that to this year, when it was considered an upset when a Democrat beat an unpopular Republican incumbent.
But it didn't take long for an alternative theory to emerge. Patton was said to be looking ahead to 2002's U.S. Senate race, when McConnell would be up for re-election. Although McConnell was already the most powerful Republican in the state, he still hadn't climbed to the apex of political power. He didn't have nearly as much muscle to flex back then as he does now. So from thence came rumors of a deal: If McConnell wouldn't get the state Republicans behind a gubernatorial challenger in 1999, Patton would not run for Senate in 2002.
As it turned out, a deal wasn't necessary. McConnell beat his 2002 challenger, Lois Combs Weinberg, daughter of the late Gov. Bert T. Combs, by a 65-35 margin (the reverse of what voter registration was in Kentucky at the time). Weinberg was so bad of a candidate that it's rumored even her stepmother, Judge Sara Combs, didn't support her. A possible Patton run in 2004 against the then-first-term incumbent Jim Bunning to reclaim what Democrats regarded as "Wendell Ford's seat" evaporated in controversy. The Tina Conner scandal torpedoed Patton's political future as an elected official, although he's since re-emerged as something of an elder statesman for his party.
So, here we are, 20 years later. McConnell's fingerprints were all over two Kentucky GOP primary races earlier this year, secretary of state and attorney general. Not only do some think he was behind Hampton's removal from the gubernatorial ticket, which they think contributed to Bevin's loss, but they see McConnell behind a systematic purge of staunch conservatives who worked in Bevin's administration. So McConnell's wheeler-dealer skills have been honed and he's still using them.
There's no doubt that McConnell is a master political manipulator. But did he get some solid practice in the art two decades ago? It's a question that many longtime Bluegrass political observers would love to have answered. Maybe one of these days, when someone is brave enough to ask McConnell when they're writing yet another profile of him, or sometime when Patton has had a few too many of the beverages he's said to be fond of, there will finally be a confirmation or denial on the record to finally put an end to the speculation.
Did McConnell and former Gov. Paul Patton have some sort of deal in place to protect each other's political viability? That in exchange for the Republican Party not fielding a viable candidate against Patton when he ran for re-election in 1999, that Patton would not run for Senate against McConnell in 2002? The existence of such an agreement has been rumored for years, but no one has ever gone on the record to confirm or deny it. There might have been some -- gasp -- collusion or quid pro quo going on.
To examine the matter, let's go back to 1995. Patton was elected by slightly more than 21,000 votes over Republican Larry Forgy. The state GOP had not experienced its ascendency yet, so by the standards of the day, that was considered an extremely close margin. That race had some parallels to this year's gubernatorial election. Like 2019, the 1995 race was decided in Jefferson County. And like 2019, there were allegations of election improprieties. Unlike this year, though, criminal charges were actually filed against a handful of Patton's operatives and backers. That court case ended when Patton issued controversial pardons -- again, a parallel to this year -- for those charged.
Patton was the first Kentucky governor eligible to succeed himself in office. By the time 1999 rolled around, he had a record to either run on, or run from. And two of his positions had been quite controversial. He supported changes to workers compensation rules for employees injured on the job in a way that many felt negatively impacted coal miners' black lung claims. And he backed the removal of the community college system from the University of Kentucky's control, to be moved under a new umbrella covering community and technical colleges.
So, Patton was vulnerable. He even admitted after the 1999 election that he could've been beaten. So, you would have expected the Republicans to be chomping at the bit to finally claim the office that had eluded them so narrowly four years prior, and to win it back for the first time since Louie Nunn left office in 1971.
Again, the Republican Party was still in its ascendancy in Kentucky. The GOP had not firmed up its grip on the federal delegation, and control of the General Assembly was a distant dream back then. Forgy opted against another run at the office. But surely there was some strong Republican candidate waiting in the wings, who could have been backed by the McConnell machine that was gaining strength at the time.
Nope. No Republican with a legitimate shot of unseating a vulnerable incumbent stepped forward. Party leaders made no effort to recruit a viable candidate. The primary came down to a perennial candidate named David Williams who had switched parties (no relation to the future GOP state Senate leader) and a delightful but out-of-her-league lady named Peppy Martin. Martin won the nomination, but was no match for Patton, who cruised to victory. Martin is probably best known for wearing a prom dress to her election night event.
In retrospect, a look back at the election results shows just how susceptible Patton was to being beaten. Martin carried four predominately Republican counties in eastern Kentucky, but she also surprisingly won three counties in the coalfields (Perry, Harlan, and Letcher) that are Democrat strongholds. Patton's margin of victory in many other Appalachian counties, including his home county of Pike, was far less than one might have expected.
So why didn't the GOP field a strong challenger against Patton? Conventional wisdom of the day was that a Democrat running for re-election in Kentucky was guaranteed a victory, and that Republicans didn't want to run a potential future candidate's political outlook by sacrificing him or her to an incumbent. Contrast that to this year, when it was considered an upset when a Democrat beat an unpopular Republican incumbent.
But it didn't take long for an alternative theory to emerge. Patton was said to be looking ahead to 2002's U.S. Senate race, when McConnell would be up for re-election. Although McConnell was already the most powerful Republican in the state, he still hadn't climbed to the apex of political power. He didn't have nearly as much muscle to flex back then as he does now. So from thence came rumors of a deal: If McConnell wouldn't get the state Republicans behind a gubernatorial challenger in 1999, Patton would not run for Senate in 2002.
As it turned out, a deal wasn't necessary. McConnell beat his 2002 challenger, Lois Combs Weinberg, daughter of the late Gov. Bert T. Combs, by a 65-35 margin (the reverse of what voter registration was in Kentucky at the time). Weinberg was so bad of a candidate that it's rumored even her stepmother, Judge Sara Combs, didn't support her. A possible Patton run in 2004 against the then-first-term incumbent Jim Bunning to reclaim what Democrats regarded as "Wendell Ford's seat" evaporated in controversy. The Tina Conner scandal torpedoed Patton's political future as an elected official, although he's since re-emerged as something of an elder statesman for his party.
So, here we are, 20 years later. McConnell's fingerprints were all over two Kentucky GOP primary races earlier this year, secretary of state and attorney general. Not only do some think he was behind Hampton's removal from the gubernatorial ticket, which they think contributed to Bevin's loss, but they see McConnell behind a systematic purge of staunch conservatives who worked in Bevin's administration. So McConnell's wheeler-dealer skills have been honed and he's still using them.
There's no doubt that McConnell is a master political manipulator. But did he get some solid practice in the art two decades ago? It's a question that many longtime Bluegrass political observers would love to have answered. Maybe one of these days, when someone is brave enough to ask McConnell when they're writing yet another profile of him, or sometime when Patton has had a few too many of the beverages he's said to be fond of, there will finally be a confirmation or denial on the record to finally put an end to the speculation.
Friday, December 20, 2019
Republicans fail their first test of the Beshear administration
It's been a busy week in education circles in Kentucky, and none of the news has been good for those of us who are hoping to see major improvement and reform in our schools.
On his first day in office, Gov. Andy Beshear dissolved the existing state Board of Education, created a new one, and appointed a number of liberal opponents of school reform and defenders of the status quo. All but one of the members of the ousted board filed a lawsuit that day and sought an injunction to halt the action until the case is decided.
The following day, the new board met and forced the resignation of Wayne Lewis, the state's education commissioner. That day and the next, the lawsuit plaintiffs lost their bids for an injunction in Franklin Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, meaning the new board will remain in place until the court case is completed, which may take a year or two.
So, after all this occurred, what happened? Republican legislative leaders waited until all the controversy had subsided, then issued a statement criticizing Beshear's decision.
The old saying goes that talk is cheap. So, the statements by Senate President Robert Stivers and House Education Chair Regina Huff can be judged worthless. They accomplished nothing. "Cowardly" would be an appropriate adjective.
If these Republican leaders were really as unhappy as they claimed, they should have done something earlier in the week instead of just saying something on Friday.
Why didn't they seek to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the ousted board members? Why not file an amicus brief and ask to be heard by the courts? Stivers is an attorney. He could have written the brief and argued the motion himself.
This was an ideal opportunity for the GOP-controlled legislature to show that it will not allow the new Democrat governor to run over it, and that it will stand up for conservative principles in the face of the new liberal onslaught directed from the office on the back side of the first floor of the Capitol. But in its first test of the next four years, Republicans failed miserably.
Perhaps the Senate has something up its sleeve. Maybe it plans to reject Beshear's reorganization when it comes up for approval in that chamber when the General Assembly convenes next month. But that comes too late for Wayne Lewis, who's already taken a job at Belmont University in Tennessee. The legislature had its opportunity to take an early, bold stand last week when the ousted board members went to court, but it squandered it.
It's already been pointed out why conservatives should look upon the GOP-controlled legislature with skepticism. Last week's failure to act when the opportunity was there for a strong stance does not inspire confidence.
It's shaping up to be a long four years for Kentucky.
On his first day in office, Gov. Andy Beshear dissolved the existing state Board of Education, created a new one, and appointed a number of liberal opponents of school reform and defenders of the status quo. All but one of the members of the ousted board filed a lawsuit that day and sought an injunction to halt the action until the case is decided.
The following day, the new board met and forced the resignation of Wayne Lewis, the state's education commissioner. That day and the next, the lawsuit plaintiffs lost their bids for an injunction in Franklin Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, meaning the new board will remain in place until the court case is completed, which may take a year or two.
So, after all this occurred, what happened? Republican legislative leaders waited until all the controversy had subsided, then issued a statement criticizing Beshear's decision.
The old saying goes that talk is cheap. So, the statements by Senate President Robert Stivers and House Education Chair Regina Huff can be judged worthless. They accomplished nothing. "Cowardly" would be an appropriate adjective.
If these Republican leaders were really as unhappy as they claimed, they should have done something earlier in the week instead of just saying something on Friday.
Why didn't they seek to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the ousted board members? Why not file an amicus brief and ask to be heard by the courts? Stivers is an attorney. He could have written the brief and argued the motion himself.
This was an ideal opportunity for the GOP-controlled legislature to show that it will not allow the new Democrat governor to run over it, and that it will stand up for conservative principles in the face of the new liberal onslaught directed from the office on the back side of the first floor of the Capitol. But in its first test of the next four years, Republicans failed miserably.
Perhaps the Senate has something up its sleeve. Maybe it plans to reject Beshear's reorganization when it comes up for approval in that chamber when the General Assembly convenes next month. But that comes too late for Wayne Lewis, who's already taken a job at Belmont University in Tennessee. The legislature had its opportunity to take an early, bold stand last week when the ousted board members went to court, but it squandered it.
It's already been pointed out why conservatives should look upon the GOP-controlled legislature with skepticism. Last week's failure to act when the opportunity was there for a strong stance does not inspire confidence.
It's shaping up to be a long four years for Kentucky.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Our eyes are on Daniel Cameron
In an act of graciousness, Gov. Andy Beshear appointed Daniel Cameron to fill the unexpired term of attorney general when Beshear vacated that office to become governor. Cameron took office Tuesday and will serve out the remaining weeks of Beshear's old term before being sworn in for the term to which he was elected next month.
Republicans who are holding out hope that Cameron will be what Andy Beshear was to Matt Bevin, or Greg Stumbo was to Ernie Fletcher, should get an early indication on whether or not he will disappoint them. There a handful of issues already on the table that Cameron can address to assure them that he will be diligent in his duties.
Here are three things he could do immediately:
Republicans who are holding out hope that Cameron will be what Andy Beshear was to Matt Bevin, or Greg Stumbo was to Ernie Fletcher, should get an early indication on whether or not he will disappoint them. There a handful of issues already on the table that Cameron can address to assure them that he will be diligent in his duties.
Here are three things he could do immediately:
- He should announce that he will not be investigating the pardons and sentence commutations issued by outgoing Gov. Bevin. The governor's right to issue pardons is absolute, and granted by the state constitution, and there's no evidence of any wrongdoing or impropriety in the way they were done. There's only speculation and wishful thinking by Bevin's political opponents in both parties. And in the matter of the one that's drawn the most scrutiny, the accusations of police and prosecutorial misconduct in that case certainly raise questions about the legitimacy of the conviction.
- He should declare his intent to take over defense of the various abortion restriction laws passed by the General Assembly should the new governor decide to no longer do so. After all, Bevin's office's legal team took on the cases when as attorney general, Beshear declined to defend the laws against court challenges. Cameron should be proactive and tell the state that his office will step up.
- He should join the lawsuit filed by the ousted members of the Kentucky Board of Education against Beshear for his first-day act to dissolve and reconstitute the board. If he's not allowed to become a plaintiff in that case, he should file his own lawsuit.
A Republican attorney general and GOP control of the General Assembly have been frequently cited as two reasons for conservatives not to fret too much over Beshear's term in office. The legislature has already given the state's GOP base plenty of reasons to be distrustful of them. Now it's Cameron's turn. Will the new attorney general do the right thing and stand on principle? Or will he follow in the footsteps of his political mentor, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who has perfected the art of shying away from a fight and going along with liberals and their policies to get along?
In his first week in office, Beshear pandered to every aspect of his constituency. A week later, Cameron gets a chance to prove himself. Can we as conservatives be proud of him, or is he going to contribute to what could unfortunately turn out to be a long four years for Kentucky? He's in the spotlight.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
A rare defense of Mitch McConnell against an unfair criticism
Anyone who knows me knows I'm not a fan of Mitch McConnell. Kentucky's senior senator and the current majority leader of the U.S. Senate is the personification of the Republican establishment that seems more interested in siding with liberals and Democrats than with the base of his own party.
He's also a political opportunist who demands loyalty but shows none. When times get tough for Republicans, he abandons them. Just ask Ernie Fletcher, or Alabama's Roy Moore.
I went from being a vocal McConnell supporter during his 2002 re-election campaign to vowing that I would never vote for him again just three years later. And indeed, I haven't. If he's had a worthy primary challenger, such as Matt Bevin in 2014, I cast my ballot for them. If not, I wrote someone in. And I didn't vote for McConnell in the general elections either. I certainly didn't vote for Bruce Lunsford in 2008, or for Alison Lundergan Grimes in 2014, but McConnell didn't get my vote either.
My list of grievances with McConnell is long. And while I've always been on his side on things like First Amendment issues, I'm no fan of his fondness for big government, and his predicable support for liberal Republicans over conservative ones is frustrating. He'd rather pass a bill that increases government spending and programs than shut down the government to force cuts. While his record on judicial appointments is admirable, it's absurd to think that any Republican Senate majority leader wouldn't do likewise.
But there's at least one criticism of McConnell that's floating around as he seeks his seventh six-year term in the Senate that is totally off-base and needs to be refuted.
McConnell's 2020 re-election campaign has been on the left's radar screen for several years. National left-wing interests are going all-in on prospective challenger Amy McGrath's candidacy. But even before she entered politics via her failed run for Congress last year, McConnell's years of service had become an issue.
It's no secret that Kentucky doesn't do well in a lot of national rankings. We rank low in a lot of good categories, and we rank high in a lot of bad categories. You've probably seen the memes on social media, saying that after more than three decades of McConnell's service in Washington, Kentucky is a terrible place and McConnell needs to be replaced.
It would make a nice story if it was true. But the reality is that all of those things that are being pointed out are state issues, not federal matters. And which party's had a stranglehold on control of this state for longer than McConnell's been in the Senate? Hint: it's not McConnell's party.
Kentucky Democrats own every one of the state's failures and shortcomings, from educational attainment to health issues to poverty rates. Most of us have seen but two Republican governors in our lifetimes. The GOP has only had control of both houses of the General Assembly since January 2017. Democrats still hold the lead in voter registrations and in the overall number of local elected officials (last year, for the first time, Republicans finally netted a majority of county judge-executive positions.) Republicans haven't had control of the state for long enough to fix our issues, much less create them.
So, to blame Mitch McConnell for the state's problems is to be intellectually dishonest.
Democrats tried to do this in 2014 in a controversy that focused on my hometown. Prior to a public appearance in Beattyville by McConnell, the editor of one of the local newspapers -- well-known as being a liberal Democrat -- asked him about what his plans were to bring jobs to Lee County and other areas of the state with high unemployment rates. McConnell answered, correctly, that job recruitment is not a duty of the U.S. Senate, but is instead a job for state agencies. The editor wrote a biased story pegged on that comment. Local Democrats invited Jerry Lundergan's Daughter to town for a round-table, which the editor gleefully attended. The matter ended up in her ads, replete with an image of the misleading story's headline. It didn't work, either locally or statewide. McConnell beat her in Lee County by 36 points, and he scored a 12-point victory statewide despite a number of polls that predicted his defeat.
Now, they don't even have that platform to use. Job creation has skyrocketed during the past four years of Matt Bevin's gubernatorial administration. So far, it seems McGrath's primary focus is going to be to blame McConnell for a toxic ideological divide in the nation. (As if the partisan impeachment effort isn't a bigger contributor.)
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of reasons to dislike the incumbent senior senator. Liberals have Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh; conservatives have his avowed opposition to tea party principles and candidates and his affinity for big government.
But if you're going to criticize McConnell, do so on sound intellectual footing. Blaming him for state problems that are the state government's responsibility is not a valid reason to oppose him.
He's also a political opportunist who demands loyalty but shows none. When times get tough for Republicans, he abandons them. Just ask Ernie Fletcher, or Alabama's Roy Moore.
I went from being a vocal McConnell supporter during his 2002 re-election campaign to vowing that I would never vote for him again just three years later. And indeed, I haven't. If he's had a worthy primary challenger, such as Matt Bevin in 2014, I cast my ballot for them. If not, I wrote someone in. And I didn't vote for McConnell in the general elections either. I certainly didn't vote for Bruce Lunsford in 2008, or for Alison Lundergan Grimes in 2014, but McConnell didn't get my vote either.
My list of grievances with McConnell is long. And while I've always been on his side on things like First Amendment issues, I'm no fan of his fondness for big government, and his predicable support for liberal Republicans over conservative ones is frustrating. He'd rather pass a bill that increases government spending and programs than shut down the government to force cuts. While his record on judicial appointments is admirable, it's absurd to think that any Republican Senate majority leader wouldn't do likewise.
But there's at least one criticism of McConnell that's floating around as he seeks his seventh six-year term in the Senate that is totally off-base and needs to be refuted.
McConnell's 2020 re-election campaign has been on the left's radar screen for several years. National left-wing interests are going all-in on prospective challenger Amy McGrath's candidacy. But even before she entered politics via her failed run for Congress last year, McConnell's years of service had become an issue.
It's no secret that Kentucky doesn't do well in a lot of national rankings. We rank low in a lot of good categories, and we rank high in a lot of bad categories. You've probably seen the memes on social media, saying that after more than three decades of McConnell's service in Washington, Kentucky is a terrible place and McConnell needs to be replaced.
It would make a nice story if it was true. But the reality is that all of those things that are being pointed out are state issues, not federal matters. And which party's had a stranglehold on control of this state for longer than McConnell's been in the Senate? Hint: it's not McConnell's party.
Kentucky Democrats own every one of the state's failures and shortcomings, from educational attainment to health issues to poverty rates. Most of us have seen but two Republican governors in our lifetimes. The GOP has only had control of both houses of the General Assembly since January 2017. Democrats still hold the lead in voter registrations and in the overall number of local elected officials (last year, for the first time, Republicans finally netted a majority of county judge-executive positions.) Republicans haven't had control of the state for long enough to fix our issues, much less create them.
So, to blame Mitch McConnell for the state's problems is to be intellectually dishonest.
Democrats tried to do this in 2014 in a controversy that focused on my hometown. Prior to a public appearance in Beattyville by McConnell, the editor of one of the local newspapers -- well-known as being a liberal Democrat -- asked him about what his plans were to bring jobs to Lee County and other areas of the state with high unemployment rates. McConnell answered, correctly, that job recruitment is not a duty of the U.S. Senate, but is instead a job for state agencies. The editor wrote a biased story pegged on that comment. Local Democrats invited Jerry Lundergan's Daughter to town for a round-table, which the editor gleefully attended. The matter ended up in her ads, replete with an image of the misleading story's headline. It didn't work, either locally or statewide. McConnell beat her in Lee County by 36 points, and he scored a 12-point victory statewide despite a number of polls that predicted his defeat.
Now, they don't even have that platform to use. Job creation has skyrocketed during the past four years of Matt Bevin's gubernatorial administration. So far, it seems McGrath's primary focus is going to be to blame McConnell for a toxic ideological divide in the nation. (As if the partisan impeachment effort isn't a bigger contributor.)
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of reasons to dislike the incumbent senior senator. Liberals have Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh; conservatives have his avowed opposition to tea party principles and candidates and his affinity for big government.
But if you're going to criticize McConnell, do so on sound intellectual footing. Blaming him for state problems that are the state government's responsibility is not a valid reason to oppose him.
Friday, December 13, 2019
More reasons to distrust Kentucky's GOP legislature
Anyone who's holding out hope that the Republican-controlled Kentucky General Assembly will stand unified in opposition to the state's new Democrat governor, Andy Beshear, saw a couple of more reasons to question that hope this week as the Matt Bevin administration gave way to the incoming governor.
There's plenty of justification to question the legislature's commitment to conservative values. The "new majority" hasn't exactly behaved in a conservative manner over the last couple of years. And during the past week, legislators have shown that they aren't shy about jumping on a fellow Republican and sidling up to his critics.
The first instance happened Monday, when the legislature's contract review committee voted not to approve the Bevin administration's decision to award the state's Medicaid managed care contract to five companies, including the non-renewal of contracts for Passport Health and Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
That committee's decision was not binding, however, and the Bevin administration overrode the recommendation and proceeded with its original decision.
The press categorized it as a last-minute rebuke of the outgoing Republican governor by his own party. And it's possible that the new administration will attempt to reverse the decision. But on its surface, the administration's decision wasn't a bad call. Anthem has administered the health insurance for state employees and teachers for years, and has shown itself to be unable to control costs. Coverage gets worse every year, with employees having to pay more out of pocket through rising costs and deductibles. And problems with Passport's coverage are well-documented if you've paid attention. It's not hard to find complaints about their service.
And then there's the matter of the pardons, and one Republican legislator's knee-jerk reaction to them.
Kentucky's Constitution gives the governor the power to pardon criminals or commute their sentences. Practically every governor makes use of that power, often during their final weeks in office. Rarely has much been made of this practice, but that wasn't the case this time around. After Bevin's pardons became public, they became the subject of intense criticism -- likely fueled by inflammatory hostile press coverage, compounded by the grandstanding statements of prosecutors whose involvement in the cases ended with the guilty verdicts and would have no knowledge of the rehabilitation, repentance and redemption of the defendants during their incarceration.
After staying silent when Steve Beshear pardoned dozens on his way out the door four years ago, Republican state Sen. Chris McDaniel somehow found it necessary to become outraged when a governor from his own party did what his Democrat predecessor did four years ago.
McDaniel has filed a bill that would propose an amendment to the state constitution that would bring a halt to a governor's ability to issue pardons a month prior to the gubernatorial election, and in the period between that election and the inauguration.
This is probably the point where it should be mentioned that McDaniel was the running mate of Jamie Comer, who famously lost the 2015 GOP primary to Bevin by 83 votes. Makes one wonder if there aren't more than a few sour grapes behind his proposed amendment. Although Bevin's no longer in office, McDaniels' proposal is clearly a slap at him.
The problem with far too many Republicans is that they seem almost eager to clash with their fellow Republicans. Kentucky is full of GOP members who can't resist a chance to jump into the political bed with Democrats. During a time when, more than ever, the Republicans need to stay unified, they seem intent on engaging in infighting.
It doesn't bode well with a new governor in office who's already showing resistance to conservative policies. If the Republican majority is more interested in fighting other Republicans than the governor from the opposing party, it's definitely going to be a long, hard four years.
There's plenty of justification to question the legislature's commitment to conservative values. The "new majority" hasn't exactly behaved in a conservative manner over the last couple of years. And during the past week, legislators have shown that they aren't shy about jumping on a fellow Republican and sidling up to his critics.
The first instance happened Monday, when the legislature's contract review committee voted not to approve the Bevin administration's decision to award the state's Medicaid managed care contract to five companies, including the non-renewal of contracts for Passport Health and Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
That committee's decision was not binding, however, and the Bevin administration overrode the recommendation and proceeded with its original decision.
The press categorized it as a last-minute rebuke of the outgoing Republican governor by his own party. And it's possible that the new administration will attempt to reverse the decision. But on its surface, the administration's decision wasn't a bad call. Anthem has administered the health insurance for state employees and teachers for years, and has shown itself to be unable to control costs. Coverage gets worse every year, with employees having to pay more out of pocket through rising costs and deductibles. And problems with Passport's coverage are well-documented if you've paid attention. It's not hard to find complaints about their service.
And then there's the matter of the pardons, and one Republican legislator's knee-jerk reaction to them.
Kentucky's Constitution gives the governor the power to pardon criminals or commute their sentences. Practically every governor makes use of that power, often during their final weeks in office. Rarely has much been made of this practice, but that wasn't the case this time around. After Bevin's pardons became public, they became the subject of intense criticism -- likely fueled by inflammatory hostile press coverage, compounded by the grandstanding statements of prosecutors whose involvement in the cases ended with the guilty verdicts and would have no knowledge of the rehabilitation, repentance and redemption of the defendants during their incarceration.
After staying silent when Steve Beshear pardoned dozens on his way out the door four years ago, Republican state Sen. Chris McDaniel somehow found it necessary to become outraged when a governor from his own party did what his Democrat predecessor did four years ago.
McDaniel has filed a bill that would propose an amendment to the state constitution that would bring a halt to a governor's ability to issue pardons a month prior to the gubernatorial election, and in the period between that election and the inauguration.
This is probably the point where it should be mentioned that McDaniel was the running mate of Jamie Comer, who famously lost the 2015 GOP primary to Bevin by 83 votes. Makes one wonder if there aren't more than a few sour grapes behind his proposed amendment. Although Bevin's no longer in office, McDaniels' proposal is clearly a slap at him.
The problem with far too many Republicans is that they seem almost eager to clash with their fellow Republicans. Kentucky is full of GOP members who can't resist a chance to jump into the political bed with Democrats. During a time when, more than ever, the Republicans need to stay unified, they seem intent on engaging in infighting.
It doesn't bode well with a new governor in office who's already showing resistance to conservative policies. If the Republican majority is more interested in fighting other Republicans than the governor from the opposing party, it's definitely going to be a long, hard four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)