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.
Friday, December 27, 2019
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.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
This is why conservatives get frustrated
If what happened today is an indication of how the next four years are going to go, conservative Kentuckians are in for a long, rough ride.
It's also indicative of why so many of us stay frustrated at and rail at the moderates and go-along-to-get-along Republicans who'd rather make nice with Democrats than stand on principle and fight for what's right.
Two days after new Gov. Andy Beshear replaced all members of the state Board of Education, and before final resolution of a lawsuit the ousted members filed, the new board -- loaded with Democrats -- forced the ouster of Commissioner Wayne Lewis.
For those of us who were girding for a battle, and who actually believed Lewis when he said he wouldn't go quietly because there was no cause for him to be dismissed, it was a major letdown.
Those of us who had fears about how the Republican majority in the General Assembly would deal with the new governor had those fears justified. How can we have any confidence that the House and Senate will keep the new liberal governor in check, when the education commissioner who vowed to fight ended up caving with a whimper?
The pandering to the educational bureaucracy couldn't be more plain. Beshear promised them the moon during his campaign. He couldn't wait beyond his inaugural day to appoint an entirely new state school board. That board couldn't even wait a full week after taking office, or before the courts decide if they're even legally entitled to be members, before doing their master's bidding and giving the axe to someone who actually thought shaking up the educational system and doing something different might possibly mean better schools.
Unfortunately for the former board, and ultimately for Lewis, those members who sued failed to get emergency injunctive relief to stop this morning's meeting in which Lewis was pushed out. While the judges most likely properly ruled that the board members themselves could not show irreparable harm, Lewis most certainly can. But he wasn't party to the lawsuit. Now, if the ousted board members win what will be a protracted court battle, Lewis is still gone even if they get their seats back.
Lewis did get a nice golden parachute. One media report stated it's four months' salary and health insurance. And he'll have a job waiting for him somewhere, possibly back at the University of Kentucky where he was before becoming commissioner. But his advocacy for better education will be gone from the place where it's needed the most.
Many of us were looking forward to a controversy. We wanted the new board to try to remove Lewis for cause, and we wanted him to fight them as hard as possible. We hoped that finally we'd found someone who'd stand on principle instead of giving in the way so many do. But we were let down. For all his tough talk in previous weeks, his actions proved hollow. He had no comment on why he decided to resign instead of staying to fight for his job immediately after the decision was announced. Maybe someone will get him on the record to try to explain his about-face.
Staunch conservatives don't want surrender. We're not interested in comity. Going along to get along, at the expense of our core beliefs, is not an option. We want policy victories. If it requires engaging the opponents in messy situations, that's what we're seeking. It's a big part of why someone who's not cut from the traditional conservative mold, like Donald Trump, enjoys so much support. Trump's not willing to just sit there and take it like so many of his predecessors. He fights back. We haven't had very many Republicans willing to do that in recent history. It's refreshing to see.
In the meantime, looks like that group that former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refers to as "the surrender caucus" has gained another member. When they have their Christmas dinner, they'll have a seat for Wayne Lewis at the table.
It's also indicative of why so many of us stay frustrated at and rail at the moderates and go-along-to-get-along Republicans who'd rather make nice with Democrats than stand on principle and fight for what's right.
Two days after new Gov. Andy Beshear replaced all members of the state Board of Education, and before final resolution of a lawsuit the ousted members filed, the new board -- loaded with Democrats -- forced the ouster of Commissioner Wayne Lewis.
For those of us who were girding for a battle, and who actually believed Lewis when he said he wouldn't go quietly because there was no cause for him to be dismissed, it was a major letdown.
Those of us who had fears about how the Republican majority in the General Assembly would deal with the new governor had those fears justified. How can we have any confidence that the House and Senate will keep the new liberal governor in check, when the education commissioner who vowed to fight ended up caving with a whimper?
The pandering to the educational bureaucracy couldn't be more plain. Beshear promised them the moon during his campaign. He couldn't wait beyond his inaugural day to appoint an entirely new state school board. That board couldn't even wait a full week after taking office, or before the courts decide if they're even legally entitled to be members, before doing their master's bidding and giving the axe to someone who actually thought shaking up the educational system and doing something different might possibly mean better schools.
Unfortunately for the former board, and ultimately for Lewis, those members who sued failed to get emergency injunctive relief to stop this morning's meeting in which Lewis was pushed out. While the judges most likely properly ruled that the board members themselves could not show irreparable harm, Lewis most certainly can. But he wasn't party to the lawsuit. Now, if the ousted board members win what will be a protracted court battle, Lewis is still gone even if they get their seats back.
Lewis did get a nice golden parachute. One media report stated it's four months' salary and health insurance. And he'll have a job waiting for him somewhere, possibly back at the University of Kentucky where he was before becoming commissioner. But his advocacy for better education will be gone from the place where it's needed the most.
Many of us were looking forward to a controversy. We wanted the new board to try to remove Lewis for cause, and we wanted him to fight them as hard as possible. We hoped that finally we'd found someone who'd stand on principle instead of giving in the way so many do. But we were let down. For all his tough talk in previous weeks, his actions proved hollow. He had no comment on why he decided to resign instead of staying to fight for his job immediately after the decision was announced. Maybe someone will get him on the record to try to explain his about-face.
Staunch conservatives don't want surrender. We're not interested in comity. Going along to get along, at the expense of our core beliefs, is not an option. We want policy victories. If it requires engaging the opponents in messy situations, that's what we're seeking. It's a big part of why someone who's not cut from the traditional conservative mold, like Donald Trump, enjoys so much support. Trump's not willing to just sit there and take it like so many of his predecessors. He fights back. We haven't had very many Republicans willing to do that in recent history. It's refreshing to see.
In the meantime, looks like that group that former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refers to as "the surrender caucus" has gained another member. When they have their Christmas dinner, they'll have a seat for Wayne Lewis at the table.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
The fun has already begin
Not 24 hours into his term as Kentucky's new governor, Andy Beshear found himself on the end of a lawsuit. Looks like turnabout is fair play for the man who spent the majority of his term as attorney general suing the man he replaced as governor.
Beshear had promised to take steps to remake the state Board of Education with members more to his liking, with their mission being first and foremost to dismiss Commissioner Wayne Lewis for the sin of actually wanting to improve education in Kentucky in a way that might upset the status quo and the balance of power for the Kentucky Education Association and Jefferson County Teachers Association.
Even before his public swearing-in ceremony on Inauguration Day, he signed an executive order dissolving the existing board, establishing a new one, and appointing a host of political cronies and contributors to it.
Along the way, he established on the first day of his term that he's a hypocrite.
Given the nature of Beshear's campaign promises, the board members saw it coming. It didn't take them long to choose a spokesman and announce that they were filing suit to stop the new governor's actions. All but one of the members have joined in the suit.
Governors abolishing and restructuring boards is nothing new. It was probably most famously done when Ernie Fletcher got rid of the old Kentucky Racing Commission and established the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority. But when outgoing Gov. Matt Bevin took similar actions with other boards, Beshear went to court, arguing that the move was improper and illegal. Beshear lost that battle, but if he thought it was an improper action then, why has he suddenly reversed course and thinks it's OK now? Around here, we call that being hypocritical, if one professes to have values or beliefs, but abandons them for personal gain.
The ousted board members argue, however, that the circumstances are different in this instance. They say that the appointment and structuring of the state school board is specifically addressed in the provisions of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, and the governor is not following applicable law in this instance.
Political observers will recognize a few familiar names on the list of Beshear's appointees. Democrats David Karem and Mike Bowling, former legislators, jump out. (And don't forget that Bowling is a former law partner of Greg Stumbo; that certainly doesn't bode well for the new board's ability to act in the best interests of the state.)
(To the media's credit, some stories indicated that a number of the new board members were contributors to Beshear's campaign; some reporters went ballistic last week when Bevin said one high-level appointee had to make a campaign contribution to get their jobs and failed to research the contributions of those who had been announced.)
This promises to be messy. The replaced board members have vowed to take the dispute all the way to the state Supreme Court. The new board is going to look into firing Lewis without cause on Thursday morning (Dec. 12), and he's stated he will not resign and will require the 90-day notice of dismissal that's included in his contract. Word has it that there's a steep financial penalty the state will have to pay if they fire him without cause prior to the expiration of his contract. And it's highly possible the Senate will not go along with Beshear's appointments or restructuring, as is required for them to take effect. And, will incoming Attorney General Daniel Cameron get involved in the suit? He is taking office next week to fill out Beshear's unexpired term until he's sworn in next month for his own term.
In his inauguration speech, Beshear promised a spirit of cooperation and a new day in Kentucky politics. But even before he stepped up on that stage and started speaking, his actions showed that his words were hollow. He didn't even bother having a conversation with the education commissioner, whose position is supposed to be insulated from politics, before putting the wheels in motion to have him fired. Lewis' predecessor left on his own after Bevin appointed members to fill expired terms. He could have chosen to stay.
But there's great irony in the new governor getting a taste of his own medicine before the sun had set on his first day in office. Some of us are probably enjoying it a little more than we should.
Beshear had promised to take steps to remake the state Board of Education with members more to his liking, with their mission being first and foremost to dismiss Commissioner Wayne Lewis for the sin of actually wanting to improve education in Kentucky in a way that might upset the status quo and the balance of power for the Kentucky Education Association and Jefferson County Teachers Association.
Even before his public swearing-in ceremony on Inauguration Day, he signed an executive order dissolving the existing board, establishing a new one, and appointing a host of political cronies and contributors to it.
Along the way, he established on the first day of his term that he's a hypocrite.
Given the nature of Beshear's campaign promises, the board members saw it coming. It didn't take them long to choose a spokesman and announce that they were filing suit to stop the new governor's actions. All but one of the members have joined in the suit.
Governors abolishing and restructuring boards is nothing new. It was probably most famously done when Ernie Fletcher got rid of the old Kentucky Racing Commission and established the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority. But when outgoing Gov. Matt Bevin took similar actions with other boards, Beshear went to court, arguing that the move was improper and illegal. Beshear lost that battle, but if he thought it was an improper action then, why has he suddenly reversed course and thinks it's OK now? Around here, we call that being hypocritical, if one professes to have values or beliefs, but abandons them for personal gain.
The ousted board members argue, however, that the circumstances are different in this instance. They say that the appointment and structuring of the state school board is specifically addressed in the provisions of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, and the governor is not following applicable law in this instance.
Political observers will recognize a few familiar names on the list of Beshear's appointees. Democrats David Karem and Mike Bowling, former legislators, jump out. (And don't forget that Bowling is a former law partner of Greg Stumbo; that certainly doesn't bode well for the new board's ability to act in the best interests of the state.)
(To the media's credit, some stories indicated that a number of the new board members were contributors to Beshear's campaign; some reporters went ballistic last week when Bevin said one high-level appointee had to make a campaign contribution to get their jobs and failed to research the contributions of those who had been announced.)
This promises to be messy. The replaced board members have vowed to take the dispute all the way to the state Supreme Court. The new board is going to look into firing Lewis without cause on Thursday morning (Dec. 12), and he's stated he will not resign and will require the 90-day notice of dismissal that's included in his contract. Word has it that there's a steep financial penalty the state will have to pay if they fire him without cause prior to the expiration of his contract. And it's highly possible the Senate will not go along with Beshear's appointments or restructuring, as is required for them to take effect. And, will incoming Attorney General Daniel Cameron get involved in the suit? He is taking office next week to fill out Beshear's unexpired term until he's sworn in next month for his own term.
In his inauguration speech, Beshear promised a spirit of cooperation and a new day in Kentucky politics. But even before he stepped up on that stage and started speaking, his actions showed that his words were hollow. He didn't even bother having a conversation with the education commissioner, whose position is supposed to be insulated from politics, before putting the wheels in motion to have him fired. Lewis' predecessor left on his own after Bevin appointed members to fill expired terms. He could have chosen to stay.
But there's great irony in the new governor getting a taste of his own medicine before the sun had set on his first day in office. Some of us are probably enjoying it a little more than we should.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
I hope he fails
In January 2009 -- has it really been nearly 11 years ago since this happened? -- as Barack Obama was on the cusp of being inaugurated as president, The Wall Street Journal contacted a number of prominent American commentators, political figures, business leaders, and others to submit a 400-word essay on their hopes for Obama's presidency.
Included in that invitation was Rush Limbaugh, America's foremost conservative voice. But instead of submitting his written thoughts, Limbaugh famously took to the airwaves on his radio show and gave his thoughts.
"I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’"
"What they purposely got wrong was they reported that I was hoping America failed, that I was so rank partisan that I was willing for my country to suffer in order for Obama’s presidency to fail. And it was the exact opposite. I wanted Obama to fail so that my country would not. I wanted Obama’s liberal agenda, his socialist community organizer agenda to fail.," he said two years ago in response to continued mentions of that incident.
Why say this here and now? Just as Limbaugh hoped that Obama would not succeed in implementing policies that would hurt the nation, I feel the same way as Andy Beshear takes office as Kentucky's governor.
I hope he fails.
That does not mean I want Kentucky to fail. On the contrary. I love this state and want it to succeed beyond anyone's imagination. I want to prove all those stereotypes wrong that the big-city dwellers and coastal elites have about us. I want our economy to soar. I want our freedoms to be preserved. I want to see life protected and government constrained. And I want to see the progress of the past four years continue.
We aren't going to get that with Beshear in charge. He's already indicated he wants to make changes to the state board of education and replace the commissioner. That would preserve the status quo instead of making it possible to reform our public schools and implement changes that would lift our educational system out of the abyss it's in. He wants to stop the implementation of work requirements for Medicaid, meaning more people will continue to leech off the system without earning their benefits. He will roll back regulatory restrictions on abortion clinics, reversing four years of protection of innocent life. And given the history of his father, who's his ideological twin, regarding pension reform, it certainly doesn't bode well for any attempts to preserve pensions for current public-payroll retirees and workers while ensuring there's some sort of viable retirement plan for future employees.
Those of us who are hoping that Kentucky doesn't retreat from its forward progress during Beshear's term have to hold our hopes out for the Republican-dominated General Assembly, and Attorney General Daniel Cameron, but it could be that our hopes are misplaced. The legislature certainly hasn't behaved in a conservative fashion the last year or so, and keep in mind that Cameron is a protege of the quintessential "go along to get along" Republican, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. And with a number of conservatives blaming McConnell for co-opting Matt Bevin's administration and re-election campaign, they're viewing Cameron with skepticism. Will he target Beshear's administration the way Beshear did Bevin when Beshear was attorney general? Or will he take a more conciliatory path?
Hoping Andy Beshear fails in implementing his liberal agenda after four years of a Republican, mostly conservative governor, isn't wishing ill for the state or its residents. To the contrary, it's looking out for the state and its best interests. While all of us should be in prayer for the new governor for strength and wisdom, none of us who call ourselves conservatives should in any way want him to proceed with liberal policies that we think will put the brakes on this state's forward progress and throw it into reverse.
So, for the next four years, we will hope that the new governor is stymied in implementing misguided decisions. We will view gridlock as a good thing if it keeps harm from being done, and will support inaction over improper action. We'll cheer on the Republicans in the legislature and the other constitutional offices when they stand on principle, and criticize them when they yield to a liberal agenda. We will pray for Kentucky to continue to thrive as it has the past four years.
That thriving will not occur under the policies of the past, under the leadership of politicians cast from the same mold as those who led our state into the abyss for decades. Which party has controlled this state for 40 of the past 48 years? Not the Republicans. Republicans have had two four-year shots at trying to clean up decades of bad decisions. In both cases -- Ernie Fletcher 2003-07, and Bevin 2015-2019, Democrats got angry because their old way of doing things had been upended in the name of progress.
If Andy Beshear can move this state forward without doing harm to our values and our economy and our educational system, then by all means I hope he succeeds. But is that really possible under a liberal framework that imposes regulations that stifle growth, limit freedoms, restrict innovation, and return to failed ways of doing things?
So trust me. I have the commonwealth's best interests at heart when I say to Andy Beshear: I hope you fail.
Included in that invitation was Rush Limbaugh, America's foremost conservative voice. But instead of submitting his written thoughts, Limbaugh famously took to the airwaves on his radio show and gave his thoughts.
"I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’"
Needless to say, the left and the Republican establishment went bonkers. How could he say that? How dare he wish ill upon the country?
But naturally, that's not what Limbaugh meant at all, if anyone cared to listen to the context beyond the shock value of the four words. He explained it carefully: Obama's policies are bad for America, and if he succeeds in implementing them, it will be harmful to the country. Therefore, I want him to not succeed in what he wants to do.
Even eight years later, the left couldn't get over what he'd said.
Or, again in his own words: "I did not and never have and never will want America to fail. Never. No way. This was my point of trying to articulate the difference. I wanted Obama to fail implementing things like Obamacare. I wanted Obama to fail in letting the Iranians have nuclear weapons. I wanted Obama to fail at keeping our borders open. I wanted Obama to fail at everything he did. I wanted Obama to fail at the stimulus. I did not want America to fail. I wanted America to be saved."
Or, again in his own words: "I did not and never have and never will want America to fail. Never. No way. This was my point of trying to articulate the difference. I wanted Obama to fail implementing things like Obamacare. I wanted Obama to fail in letting the Iranians have nuclear weapons. I wanted Obama to fail at keeping our borders open. I wanted Obama to fail at everything he did. I wanted Obama to fail at the stimulus. I did not want America to fail. I wanted America to be saved."
Why say this here and now? Just as Limbaugh hoped that Obama would not succeed in implementing policies that would hurt the nation, I feel the same way as Andy Beshear takes office as Kentucky's governor.
I hope he fails.
That does not mean I want Kentucky to fail. On the contrary. I love this state and want it to succeed beyond anyone's imagination. I want to prove all those stereotypes wrong that the big-city dwellers and coastal elites have about us. I want our economy to soar. I want our freedoms to be preserved. I want to see life protected and government constrained. And I want to see the progress of the past four years continue.
We aren't going to get that with Beshear in charge. He's already indicated he wants to make changes to the state board of education and replace the commissioner. That would preserve the status quo instead of making it possible to reform our public schools and implement changes that would lift our educational system out of the abyss it's in. He wants to stop the implementation of work requirements for Medicaid, meaning more people will continue to leech off the system without earning their benefits. He will roll back regulatory restrictions on abortion clinics, reversing four years of protection of innocent life. And given the history of his father, who's his ideological twin, regarding pension reform, it certainly doesn't bode well for any attempts to preserve pensions for current public-payroll retirees and workers while ensuring there's some sort of viable retirement plan for future employees.
Those of us who are hoping that Kentucky doesn't retreat from its forward progress during Beshear's term have to hold our hopes out for the Republican-dominated General Assembly, and Attorney General Daniel Cameron, but it could be that our hopes are misplaced. The legislature certainly hasn't behaved in a conservative fashion the last year or so, and keep in mind that Cameron is a protege of the quintessential "go along to get along" Republican, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. And with a number of conservatives blaming McConnell for co-opting Matt Bevin's administration and re-election campaign, they're viewing Cameron with skepticism. Will he target Beshear's administration the way Beshear did Bevin when Beshear was attorney general? Or will he take a more conciliatory path?
Hoping Andy Beshear fails in implementing his liberal agenda after four years of a Republican, mostly conservative governor, isn't wishing ill for the state or its residents. To the contrary, it's looking out for the state and its best interests. While all of us should be in prayer for the new governor for strength and wisdom, none of us who call ourselves conservatives should in any way want him to proceed with liberal policies that we think will put the brakes on this state's forward progress and throw it into reverse.
So, for the next four years, we will hope that the new governor is stymied in implementing misguided decisions. We will view gridlock as a good thing if it keeps harm from being done, and will support inaction over improper action. We'll cheer on the Republicans in the legislature and the other constitutional offices when they stand on principle, and criticize them when they yield to a liberal agenda. We will pray for Kentucky to continue to thrive as it has the past four years.
That thriving will not occur under the policies of the past, under the leadership of politicians cast from the same mold as those who led our state into the abyss for decades. Which party has controlled this state for 40 of the past 48 years? Not the Republicans. Republicans have had two four-year shots at trying to clean up decades of bad decisions. In both cases -- Ernie Fletcher 2003-07, and Bevin 2015-2019, Democrats got angry because their old way of doing things had been upended in the name of progress.
If Andy Beshear can move this state forward without doing harm to our values and our economy and our educational system, then by all means I hope he succeeds. But is that really possible under a liberal framework that imposes regulations that stifle growth, limit freedoms, restrict innovation, and return to failed ways of doing things?
So trust me. I have the commonwealth's best interests at heart when I say to Andy Beshear: I hope you fail.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
When will the economic boom reach rural America, eastern Kentucky?
Let's get this out front from the start. I am very happy that Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, won the 2016 presidential election. She did not have the solutions to revive the moribund economy the country experienced during Barack Obama's two terms. Trump's record on economic issues shows that he was, indeed, the correct choice to move our country forward.
Similarly, I'm glad that Kentuckians elected Matt Bevin as their governor in 2015, instead of Jack Conway. Bevin's accomplishments in job creation and business expansion are unquestionable. It's a safe bet that the state will move backwards in those areas the next four years because voters chose not to re-elect Bevin and picked Andy Beshear instead.
On a national and statewide basis, things look great. Every bit of economic news that comes out is good. National unemployment is at an astoundingly low 3.5 percent. The stock market has been on a tear, consistently setting new high levels. Wages are increasing. Everything seems rosy. Happy days are here again.
But those of us far from the big cities, urban centers, and four-lane highways see this only on the news. We're not seeing it in our daily lives, in our hometowns.
If a rising tide lifts all boats, why are our vessels still taking on water? Why do the "haves" continue to do well, while the "have-nots" keep on looking for this success that's happening all around us? When is this economic boom that's taking place everywhere else going to reach us?
We're told that there are more open jobs than workers to fill them, but our unemployment rates remain high, and people have trouble finding suitable employment. When businesses locate or expand in Kentucky, they do so in communities where unemployment is low instead of those places where people are craving possibilities close to home.
Wages may be increasing elsewhere, but they're stagnant in small towns, where people are increasingly having trouble making ends meet.
A bull market makes good headlines, but means nothing to those who don't have investments or retirement accounts.
Why are the opportunities that are so freely flowing to prospering communities passing the struggling ones by?
Eastern Kentucky has its challenges, but it has resources that should be attractive to any employer. Chief among them is an ample available workforce of people who are looking for jobs, or looking for better opportunities. There are plenty of available locations for new businesses, from abandoned storefronts to empty industrial buildings to reclaimed strip mining sites. Water and electricity are available just about anywhere a new venture would want to locate.
And what of those challenges? Highway access, broadband internet availability, and cellphone service are the three biggest hurdles. These are areas where the government could step in to help.
Much of this region is plagued by inaccessibility. Modern routes like the Mountain Parkway, Hal Rogers Parkway, US 23, KY 80, and US 25E have opened up large swaths of the mountains, but trying to get between some of our county seats remains an adventure. Anyone driven from Hazard or Hyden to Harlan lately? Beattyville or Booneville to Jackson? McKee to Manchester?
It's obvious where the state needs to invest its highway construction dollars to improve access and promote economic development, but there seems to be a policy in place to give prosperous areas more at the expense of the places that really need the help. For years, two exits on I-75 served the Toyota plant at Georgetown. Now, there's a third interchange there. Bullitt County, south of Louisville on I-65, already has five exits, and a sixth one is being built on a rushed schedule. Bowling Green recently got a new exit from I-65, and Glasgow has two new exits on the Cumberland Parkway. Elizabethtown got a new exit for the Western Kentucky Parkway.
Yet the state made major cutbacks on its long-promised reconstruction of KY 30 between Owsley and Jackson counties. The project was scaled back to eliminate passing lanes on the new section under construction between Travellers Rest and Tyner. That means there will be no truck lanes whatsover on the 20-mile stretch between Levi and US 421. The extension of that route into Lee County continues to be pushed back, and the project to link that segment to the existing route north of Beattyville has disappeared from the state's road plan.
AT&T's neglect of both broadband internet and cellphone service in the counties it serves borders on the criminal. No company is going to want to locate in an area where it can't communicate with the rest of the world. Although they're making progress on both fronts, they still lag far behind what this area needs to be competitive.
When we see dozens, and sometimes hundreds, of new jobs being announced for places like Louisville and the northern Kentucky/greater Cincinnati area, we get frustrated because the state is making investments in those prosperous places instead of the struggling small communities and rural counties.
During the recent gubernatorial campaign, Beshear touched on this. He said that the Bevin administration had concentrated on the urban areas, while he was going to bring job opportunities to the entire state. When pressed on this, he mentioned agriculture. That's not going to work in the mountains, where our terrain isn't suitable for farming.
Too many of our residents are already having to commute significant distances for jobs. This costs them time and money. It should be easier for folks to be able to work near their homes, especially if there are plenty of people seeking work in those communities.
Similarly, I'm glad that Kentuckians elected Matt Bevin as their governor in 2015, instead of Jack Conway. Bevin's accomplishments in job creation and business expansion are unquestionable. It's a safe bet that the state will move backwards in those areas the next four years because voters chose not to re-elect Bevin and picked Andy Beshear instead.
On a national and statewide basis, things look great. Every bit of economic news that comes out is good. National unemployment is at an astoundingly low 3.5 percent. The stock market has been on a tear, consistently setting new high levels. Wages are increasing. Everything seems rosy. Happy days are here again.
But those of us far from the big cities, urban centers, and four-lane highways see this only on the news. We're not seeing it in our daily lives, in our hometowns.
If a rising tide lifts all boats, why are our vessels still taking on water? Why do the "haves" continue to do well, while the "have-nots" keep on looking for this success that's happening all around us? When is this economic boom that's taking place everywhere else going to reach us?
We're told that there are more open jobs than workers to fill them, but our unemployment rates remain high, and people have trouble finding suitable employment. When businesses locate or expand in Kentucky, they do so in communities where unemployment is low instead of those places where people are craving possibilities close to home.
Wages may be increasing elsewhere, but they're stagnant in small towns, where people are increasingly having trouble making ends meet.
A bull market makes good headlines, but means nothing to those who don't have investments or retirement accounts.
Why are the opportunities that are so freely flowing to prospering communities passing the struggling ones by?
Eastern Kentucky has its challenges, but it has resources that should be attractive to any employer. Chief among them is an ample available workforce of people who are looking for jobs, or looking for better opportunities. There are plenty of available locations for new businesses, from abandoned storefronts to empty industrial buildings to reclaimed strip mining sites. Water and electricity are available just about anywhere a new venture would want to locate.
And what of those challenges? Highway access, broadband internet availability, and cellphone service are the three biggest hurdles. These are areas where the government could step in to help.
Much of this region is plagued by inaccessibility. Modern routes like the Mountain Parkway, Hal Rogers Parkway, US 23, KY 80, and US 25E have opened up large swaths of the mountains, but trying to get between some of our county seats remains an adventure. Anyone driven from Hazard or Hyden to Harlan lately? Beattyville or Booneville to Jackson? McKee to Manchester?
It's obvious where the state needs to invest its highway construction dollars to improve access and promote economic development, but there seems to be a policy in place to give prosperous areas more at the expense of the places that really need the help. For years, two exits on I-75 served the Toyota plant at Georgetown. Now, there's a third interchange there. Bullitt County, south of Louisville on I-65, already has five exits, and a sixth one is being built on a rushed schedule. Bowling Green recently got a new exit from I-65, and Glasgow has two new exits on the Cumberland Parkway. Elizabethtown got a new exit for the Western Kentucky Parkway.
Yet the state made major cutbacks on its long-promised reconstruction of KY 30 between Owsley and Jackson counties. The project was scaled back to eliminate passing lanes on the new section under construction between Travellers Rest and Tyner. That means there will be no truck lanes whatsover on the 20-mile stretch between Levi and US 421. The extension of that route into Lee County continues to be pushed back, and the project to link that segment to the existing route north of Beattyville has disappeared from the state's road plan.
AT&T's neglect of both broadband internet and cellphone service in the counties it serves borders on the criminal. No company is going to want to locate in an area where it can't communicate with the rest of the world. Although they're making progress on both fronts, they still lag far behind what this area needs to be competitive.
When we see dozens, and sometimes hundreds, of new jobs being announced for places like Louisville and the northern Kentucky/greater Cincinnati area, we get frustrated because the state is making investments in those prosperous places instead of the struggling small communities and rural counties.
During the recent gubernatorial campaign, Beshear touched on this. He said that the Bevin administration had concentrated on the urban areas, while he was going to bring job opportunities to the entire state. When pressed on this, he mentioned agriculture. That's not going to work in the mountains, where our terrain isn't suitable for farming.
Too many of our residents are already having to commute significant distances for jobs. This costs them time and money. It should be easier for folks to be able to work near their homes, especially if there are plenty of people seeking work in those communities.
The protestors protest when they're being protested
How many ways are there to express this concept? "They can dish it out, but they can't take it." "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Far too often, people can't stand the same scrutiny they want to put others under. Why do Antifa activists wear hoods or masks? They're afraid of what would happen should their identities become known.
And when many activists or protestors do voice their opinions openly, they're not real happy when they're challenged. And their followers get defensive when it happens.
During the recent battles over pension reform and education funding and policy in the Kentucky General Assembly, a number of high-profile protests took place. Several were organized by formal entities such as the Kentucky Education Association and Jefferson County Teachers Association, but others were promoted by independent activist groups.
The most prominent group that came out of the protests calls itself KY 120 United. They're responsible for any #KY120United hashtags you may have seen on social media. They claim to speak for educators and public employees, but I have always made it plain that as a state employee, they in no way speak for me or advocate for me. In fact, I oppose most of the initiatives they support. I'm in favor of reforms that will preserve and protect pensions for teachers and public workers, but they've opposed the efforts. I want education at all levels improved across this state; they seem interested in maintaining the status quo and rejecting any move to change things for the better and ensure a better education for every student.
One of the founders of KY 120 United is a Fayette County Board of Education employee named Wynema Brewer-Candy. She's more commonly known as Nema Brewer. She's been identified in several news stories for her role, but only some stories have made note of the fact that she's not a classroom teacher.
Late in the gubernatorial campaign, as she and her group were leading the charge for Andy Beshear's candidacy, her salary and job title were brought up by conservative interest groups and individual activists as a matter of discussion. She is listed as a communications specialist with an annual salary of $88,369.01.
Think about that for a minute. Here is someone in a non-academic role, working for a public school system, making that much money, yet they complain about pay and funding in education.
"Wonder how teachers feel about their fearless leader making $90,000 a year just to tweet," was the way the Kentucky Freedom Coalition phrased its discussion of the matter.
While it's generally true that most private sector jobs pay more than their public sector equivalents, that doesn't appear to be the case for non-academic school system positions. Ms. Brewer's salary is around twice what state government pays its career communications professionals, and is about $30,000 more than a similar private sector position with a similar title.
I would say "title and duties," but hang on a minute.
When this became an issue in the gubernatorial race, I shared it on social media. It didn't take long for me to get a couple of angry responses from people who know and work with her, or have worked with her in the past. One's a college classmate, and the other is a friend from my area who's relocated to the Bluegrass. Both assured me that I was very out of line for bringing this up, and that Nema Brewer is a very hard worker who earns and deserves every penny that she makes.
Funny thing is, despite these assurances that she works hard and is deserving of her paycheck, they couldn't (or wouldn't) tell me exactly what she does.
I'd never heard of Nema Brewer until KY 120 United came along. She's not the spokesperson for Fayette County Schools. She's never quoted in the paper on education-related issues and her name isn't listed as the contact person for any press releases I've ever seen come from the school district there. The communications director who does all that gets a six-figure salary. That's a whole lot more than the communications directors earn at just about every state agency I can think of. In fact, Gov. Matt Bevin's communications director only makes three-fourths of that, and his press secretary gets about half Brewer's salary. And their names are front and center in just about any communications from the governor's office or statements to the media.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems funny that teachers upset about education funding and their pay aren't picketing at their local superintendent's office, asking why a non-certified administrator is making so much more than they are. (Or why they voted for the son of the governor who chronically underfunded their pensions, but that's already been noted.)
Administrative salary bloat is a real thing in just about every school district in the state. Even in some of the poorer, smaller counties, superintendents can pull down salaries in excess of $100,000. The number of six-figure administrators in Fayette County was the subject of a recent television news investigative report. And who knows what that figure is in Jefferson County, consistently home to Kentucky's worst schools and those who most resist changes in how children are educated or schools are funded?
After Brewer's salary and job became an issue, she made social media statements saying she would not be intimidated into silence. News flash: No one's trying to intimidate or silence her. They're just pointing out the irony of a non-educator making twice as much as many teachers goading them into illegal sickouts, when the teachers ought to be asking hard questions of their local school boards instead of protesting in Frankfort.
I'm not sure why Brewer or any of her fan club would be surprised that she's gotten scrutiny. Anyone who ever steps out into the public arena dons a figurative target. How many conservative activists have had their lives exposed over the years? In Kentucky, one outspoken Matt Bevin supporter has seen it happen -- in part because she helped spread the word about Nema Brewer. It's the same thing that happened when teachers protested at a business that was formerly owned by former state Sen. Joe Bowen.
When two Bevin supporters recently spoke out about election integrity, the press and the opposition made it a point to dig into their backgrounds. They expected that. Why should the founders of KY 120 United expect anything different than what the founders of Citizens for Election Integrity-Kentucky received?
Nema Brewer got her wish, for now anyway. Beshear 2.0 will take office next week. And she'll still be making her huge salary while teachers find out there's not enough Andy Candy in the dish to give each educator in the state a $2,000 raise. The same wave that finally flipped the House of Representatives will be rolling over Kentucky again next year, when President Trump's on the re-election ballot. That means that the next "Remember in November" campaign is likely to end as badly as the first one did. While the philosophies at the Labor Cabinet and Department of Education may be changing, there will also be a change in the attorney general's office, and Daniel Cameron will probably find it prudent to prosecute any teachers who illegally take sick days to protest in Frankfort during the upcoming legislative session.
Far too often, people can't stand the same scrutiny they want to put others under. Why do Antifa activists wear hoods or masks? They're afraid of what would happen should their identities become known.
And when many activists or protestors do voice their opinions openly, they're not real happy when they're challenged. And their followers get defensive when it happens.
During the recent battles over pension reform and education funding and policy in the Kentucky General Assembly, a number of high-profile protests took place. Several were organized by formal entities such as the Kentucky Education Association and Jefferson County Teachers Association, but others were promoted by independent activist groups.
The most prominent group that came out of the protests calls itself KY 120 United. They're responsible for any #KY120United hashtags you may have seen on social media. They claim to speak for educators and public employees, but I have always made it plain that as a state employee, they in no way speak for me or advocate for me. In fact, I oppose most of the initiatives they support. I'm in favor of reforms that will preserve and protect pensions for teachers and public workers, but they've opposed the efforts. I want education at all levels improved across this state; they seem interested in maintaining the status quo and rejecting any move to change things for the better and ensure a better education for every student.
One of the founders of KY 120 United is a Fayette County Board of Education employee named Wynema Brewer-Candy. She's more commonly known as Nema Brewer. She's been identified in several news stories for her role, but only some stories have made note of the fact that she's not a classroom teacher.
Late in the gubernatorial campaign, as she and her group were leading the charge for Andy Beshear's candidacy, her salary and job title were brought up by conservative interest groups and individual activists as a matter of discussion. She is listed as a communications specialist with an annual salary of $88,369.01.
Think about that for a minute. Here is someone in a non-academic role, working for a public school system, making that much money, yet they complain about pay and funding in education.
"Wonder how teachers feel about their fearless leader making $90,000 a year just to tweet," was the way the Kentucky Freedom Coalition phrased its discussion of the matter.
While it's generally true that most private sector jobs pay more than their public sector equivalents, that doesn't appear to be the case for non-academic school system positions. Ms. Brewer's salary is around twice what state government pays its career communications professionals, and is about $30,000 more than a similar private sector position with a similar title.
I would say "title and duties," but hang on a minute.
When this became an issue in the gubernatorial race, I shared it on social media. It didn't take long for me to get a couple of angry responses from people who know and work with her, or have worked with her in the past. One's a college classmate, and the other is a friend from my area who's relocated to the Bluegrass. Both assured me that I was very out of line for bringing this up, and that Nema Brewer is a very hard worker who earns and deserves every penny that she makes.
Funny thing is, despite these assurances that she works hard and is deserving of her paycheck, they couldn't (or wouldn't) tell me exactly what she does.
I'd never heard of Nema Brewer until KY 120 United came along. She's not the spokesperson for Fayette County Schools. She's never quoted in the paper on education-related issues and her name isn't listed as the contact person for any press releases I've ever seen come from the school district there. The communications director who does all that gets a six-figure salary. That's a whole lot more than the communications directors earn at just about every state agency I can think of. In fact, Gov. Matt Bevin's communications director only makes three-fourths of that, and his press secretary gets about half Brewer's salary. And their names are front and center in just about any communications from the governor's office or statements to the media.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems funny that teachers upset about education funding and their pay aren't picketing at their local superintendent's office, asking why a non-certified administrator is making so much more than they are. (Or why they voted for the son of the governor who chronically underfunded their pensions, but that's already been noted.)
Administrative salary bloat is a real thing in just about every school district in the state. Even in some of the poorer, smaller counties, superintendents can pull down salaries in excess of $100,000. The number of six-figure administrators in Fayette County was the subject of a recent television news investigative report. And who knows what that figure is in Jefferson County, consistently home to Kentucky's worst schools and those who most resist changes in how children are educated or schools are funded?
After Brewer's salary and job became an issue, she made social media statements saying she would not be intimidated into silence. News flash: No one's trying to intimidate or silence her. They're just pointing out the irony of a non-educator making twice as much as many teachers goading them into illegal sickouts, when the teachers ought to be asking hard questions of their local school boards instead of protesting in Frankfort.
I'm not sure why Brewer or any of her fan club would be surprised that she's gotten scrutiny. Anyone who ever steps out into the public arena dons a figurative target. How many conservative activists have had their lives exposed over the years? In Kentucky, one outspoken Matt Bevin supporter has seen it happen -- in part because she helped spread the word about Nema Brewer. It's the same thing that happened when teachers protested at a business that was formerly owned by former state Sen. Joe Bowen.
When two Bevin supporters recently spoke out about election integrity, the press and the opposition made it a point to dig into their backgrounds. They expected that. Why should the founders of KY 120 United expect anything different than what the founders of Citizens for Election Integrity-Kentucky received?
Nema Brewer got her wish, for now anyway. Beshear 2.0 will take office next week. And she'll still be making her huge salary while teachers find out there's not enough Andy Candy in the dish to give each educator in the state a $2,000 raise. The same wave that finally flipped the House of Representatives will be rolling over Kentucky again next year, when President Trump's on the re-election ballot. That means that the next "Remember in November" campaign is likely to end as badly as the first one did. While the philosophies at the Labor Cabinet and Department of Education may be changing, there will also be a change in the attorney general's office, and Daniel Cameron will probably find it prudent to prosecute any teachers who illegally take sick days to protest in Frankfort during the upcoming legislative session.
Friday, December 6, 2019
Lazy, agenda-driven "reporting" hastens journalism's demise
It's no secret that the journalism business is in big trouble. The big traditional print outlets are seeing their circulations decline and their credibility eroding, and the well-known broadcast outlets are losing viewers and trust at an alarming rate. High-profile lawsuits against a number of those outlets by Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann don't help, and neither will the multimillion-dollar suit Congressman Devin Nunes filed against CNN for its false report that he met with Ukrainian officials in Austria in an attempt to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
There are lots of reasons for the decline of the media. Biased coverage, poor business decisions, and bad reporting are chief among them.
At a time when newspapers are begging for readers and trying to make themselves relevant once again by adopting catchy slogans such as "Democracy Dies In Darkness," one would think that reporters would make an effort to write complete and unbiased stories when they cover current events.
A recent story by Jack Brammer from the Lexington Herald-Leader shows this not to be the case at all. Lazy, biased reporting still rules the day at one of Kentucky's two largest newspapers.
On his way out of office, Gov. Matt Bevin has been giving interviews to a number of radio stations across the state. He has either ignored or declined the Herald-Leader's request for an exit interview. And why should he talk to that paper? It has been hostile to him since he won the Republican gubernatorial nomination four years ago.
Unable to get his own interview with Bevin, Brammer decided instead to write a story centered on various comments Bevin made in those radio interviews. The focus of the story that came out was that Bevin had stated that incoming Gov.-elect Andy Beshear had sold a high-level appointment to a campaign contributor.
"I’ve heard of one person who has been appointed who told the person whose place he is taking that he had to pay. He had to make campaign contributions to get his appointment,” the story quotes Bevin as saying on a radio station in Cadiz. Brammer's story chastises Bevin for not naming the appointee or offering any proof that the allegation is true.
Isn't that the job of the press? Don't they investigate and verify the statements of officials and politicians every day? Isn't that why there are scads of fact-checking sites out there? Isn't that why reporters and pundits hang on every word President Trump utters, trying to prove them false?
So far, Beshear has made two announcements of appointments to high-level positions. His first announcement, last week, was mainly of people who work for him in the attorney general's office moving up with him. He made another announcement this week, in which he gave Lt. Gov-elect Jacqueline Coleman a cabinet secretary's role, and verified what many people suspected, in that Rep. Rocky Adkins -- whom Beshear defeated in the gubernatorial primary but became a prominent Beshear backer in the general election -- would get a key role in his administration.
Also in that announcement, Beshear stated that former Lexington mayor and failed congressional candidate Jim Gray would be his Transportation Cabinet secretary. That appointment came as a surprise to most, as the prevailing thought was that Adkins would get that job.
The Kentucky Registry of Election Finance has this neat little feature on its website, where anyone can search for campaign contributions. After first seeing Brammer's story Wednesday night, it took me about five minutes of work on my smartphone to determine that Jim Gray, this surprise appointee, had contributed the maximum of $4,000 to Andy Beshear's gubernatorial campaign. He gave two separate $1,000 contributions to Beshear's primary effort last winter, then a $2,000 gift to his general election campaign this summer.
If I could find that out, and take the time to research it, why couldn't Brammer? Wouldn't the prudent course of action for an unbiased, impartial journalist be to look into the contributions of everyone Beshear has appointed to date, then ask those individuals and the governor-elect for comment?
In the case of Gray, I can think of a number of pertinent questions to ask.
- "Did the two of you know each other previously? If so, how well? What was the nature of your relationship?"
- "Did the two of you ever discuss campaign contributions"?
- "When was Gray's appointment first discussed? How long had he been under consideration for a cabinet secretary's position?"
It could be that both Gray and Beshear would deny any connection between Gray's contributions and his appointment, but at least the questions and answers would be out there in the public domain for all to see. In any case, it's an obvious matter that one should expect a serious journalist to pursue.
The major media outlets in this state have a history of overlooking or blatantly ignoring information that would make Democrats look bad, or present Republicans in a better light. Look how doggedly the Courier-Journal tried to make Bevin's purchase of a home an issue. Yet during the Ernie Fletcher administration, the press overlooked pertinent facts concerning Greg Stumbo's investigation that could have made a difference in public perception had they been widely known.
Jack Brammer's been a political reporter for a long time. He knows how to research stories. Is he just phoning it in now, waiting for a buyout from McClatchy? Did laziness or bias impact the way he reported this story? Why didn't he do some simple investigation and then ask questions about what he could have found out? If someone who lives two hours from Frankfort can find this out from the comfort of his home, why can't a reporter who works in the capital city do it while on the job?
As a commenter noted on the H-L's story, there's no direct evidence of a quid pro quo (that certainly seems to be a popular phrase these days.) While that's true, there are legitimate questions that could be asked, and should be asked by responsible reporters. Ask them, get denials on the record, and then let the people make up their own minds based on the evidence. The fact that the question never got asked takes that possibility away from the populace.
Volumes could be, and have been, written about journalism's decline. The clock is ticking on the traditional media, as more and more sources of information become available to the public. When journalists don't do their due diligence on stories, they do their industry no favors.
Kentuckians wise to doubt legislature's ability to keep Beshear in check
One of the silver linings that's frequently mentioned when discussing the black cloud that will be Andy Beshear's term as Kentucky's governor is the fact that both houses of the General Assembly are firmly in Republican control.
The GOP holds a veto-proof supermajority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that's not likely to change next year when all 100 House seats and half of the 38 Senate seats are up for grabs on a ballot that will be headlined by the highly-popular President Trump.
The reasoning is that the Republican legislature can reject Beshear's proposals, pass its own initiatives, and then override any Beshear vetoes.
But can we really trust the General Assembly to do the right thing?
The newly-minted GOP majority started out like gangbusters when the legislature held its short session in 2017. On the strength of that new power, with a Republican governor in office, they approved right-to-work legislation, repealed the prevailing wage requirements for state- and locally-funded public works projects, tightened restrictions on elective abortions, and passed several other top-of-the-agenda initiatives that had languished for years because Democrats still controlled the House.
Unfortunately, after that, the legislature had nowhere to go but down, which it did. The Republican majority levied a sales tax on services such as veterinary fees and auto repairs, and then overrode Gov. Matt Bevin's veto. The GOP passed a drastic increase in fees for a number of transactions in county clerks' offices.
And it gets worse. Republicans continue to beat the drum for an onerous gas tax increase -- its leading proponents are GOP legislators and the ostensibly-conservative Kentucky Chamber of Commerce -- and some Republicans are even indicating they'll sign on to "red flag" gun confiscation laws that throw due process out the window.
Indeed, House Republicans invited Beshear to their caucus retreat, to begin the day after his Dec. 10 swearing-in. Beshear has not, of this writing, said whether or not he'll attend, but it's likely he won't be able to because of the immediate demands of his new office.
It's nice to fantasize that the GOP will tell the new governor to sit down and shut up and stay out of the way, but given the "new majority's" track record, they'd probably express a willingness to cave on core principles and express the "go along to get along" mentality that causes conservatives to mistrust and despise the Republican establishment.
The Senate has struck a more defiant tone. For one thing, leaders have said that any Beshear-backed proposal to legalize casino gambling is dead on arrival. But given the way that the Senate -- and the House, too, for that matter -- bucked a governor from its own party so many times, there's no reason for optimism.
Legislative leaders have said they're willing to work with the new governor on items that will improve the state. But seriously, how can supposedly conservative Republicans agree that the policies that will be proposed by a liberal Democrat would improve things? Of course, the "conservative" legislature has already shown itself to be too liberal on a number of important issues, which is disappointing to those of us who hoped for years that Kentucky voters would "flip the House" and get that body in line with the Senate on priorities.
Hope for the best, but expect the worst -- given the current legislature's track record in acting in a conservative manner, that's the safest bet for those of us who don't want to see Beshear's agenda implemented, and the line held on Kentucky regressing back to the old way of doing things until the Republicans can retake the governor's office.
The GOP holds a veto-proof supermajority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that's not likely to change next year when all 100 House seats and half of the 38 Senate seats are up for grabs on a ballot that will be headlined by the highly-popular President Trump.
The reasoning is that the Republican legislature can reject Beshear's proposals, pass its own initiatives, and then override any Beshear vetoes.
But can we really trust the General Assembly to do the right thing?
The newly-minted GOP majority started out like gangbusters when the legislature held its short session in 2017. On the strength of that new power, with a Republican governor in office, they approved right-to-work legislation, repealed the prevailing wage requirements for state- and locally-funded public works projects, tightened restrictions on elective abortions, and passed several other top-of-the-agenda initiatives that had languished for years because Democrats still controlled the House.
Unfortunately, after that, the legislature had nowhere to go but down, which it did. The Republican majority levied a sales tax on services such as veterinary fees and auto repairs, and then overrode Gov. Matt Bevin's veto. The GOP passed a drastic increase in fees for a number of transactions in county clerks' offices.
And it gets worse. Republicans continue to beat the drum for an onerous gas tax increase -- its leading proponents are GOP legislators and the ostensibly-conservative Kentucky Chamber of Commerce -- and some Republicans are even indicating they'll sign on to "red flag" gun confiscation laws that throw due process out the window.
Indeed, House Republicans invited Beshear to their caucus retreat, to begin the day after his Dec. 10 swearing-in. Beshear has not, of this writing, said whether or not he'll attend, but it's likely he won't be able to because of the immediate demands of his new office.
It's nice to fantasize that the GOP will tell the new governor to sit down and shut up and stay out of the way, but given the "new majority's" track record, they'd probably express a willingness to cave on core principles and express the "go along to get along" mentality that causes conservatives to mistrust and despise the Republican establishment.
The Senate has struck a more defiant tone. For one thing, leaders have said that any Beshear-backed proposal to legalize casino gambling is dead on arrival. But given the way that the Senate -- and the House, too, for that matter -- bucked a governor from its own party so many times, there's no reason for optimism.
Legislative leaders have said they're willing to work with the new governor on items that will improve the state. But seriously, how can supposedly conservative Republicans agree that the policies that will be proposed by a liberal Democrat would improve things? Of course, the "conservative" legislature has already shown itself to be too liberal on a number of important issues, which is disappointing to those of us who hoped for years that Kentucky voters would "flip the House" and get that body in line with the Senate on priorities.
Hope for the best, but expect the worst -- given the current legislature's track record in acting in a conservative manner, that's the safest bet for those of us who don't want to see Beshear's agenda implemented, and the line held on Kentucky regressing back to the old way of doing things until the Republicans can retake the governor's office.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Teachers' temper tantrum took down Bevin
By this time next week, Kentucky will have a new governor. With the decision by Gov. Matt Bevin not to contest the election in the General Assembly after a recanvass of the 5,000-vote decision showed no substantive changes in the vote totals, and with the certification of the results by the State Board of Elections, the way is paved for Andy Beshear to be sworn in as the commonwealth's 59th chief executive.
How did this happen? In a state that's trending Republican despite Democrats still holding an advantage in voter registration numbers, and in an election where every other Republican running for statewide office won by impressive numbers, how did an incumbent Republican who had the backing of a president who's immensely popular in the state manage to lose, especially with the state's economy bustling like never before?
There are a number of theories out there. One is that his tiff with Lt. Gov. Jeanene Hampton hurt him at the polls. Bevin alienated Hampton's supporters by not choosing her to run with him for a second time, and angered them when his administration fired members of her office staff, without consultation with or approval by her.
While that may have played a role in voting decisions by members of Hampton's inner circle -- Hampton herself admitted that she voted for Libertarian candidate John Hicks instead of Bevin -- it's doubtful that move itself cost the incumbent the race.
The night of the election, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky issued a classless statement saying it was pleased that its candidate had played spoiler and cost Bevin the election. Indeed, Hicks drew about 28,000 votes statewide, but it can't be ascertained for certain that all of those were votes that would otherwise have gone to Bevin. Libertarians tend to favor drug legalization, and Beshear had never indicated that he's for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs for recreational use. Hicks probably got his support from voters in both parties for whom being able to legally get stoned is their top-priority issue.
(It should be noted that the Libertarian Party also fielded a candidate in the auditor's race, who received more than 46,000 votes., so not even all Libertarian voters cast their ballots for Hicks.)
So again, how and why did this happen? Why did so many voters split their tickets to vote for Andy Beshear, yet picked every other Republican on the ballot?
The most correct answer is that Kentucky teachers threw a temper tantrum at the ballot box and voted against a candidate who was actually trying to ensure their pension system is solvent because they didn't like they way Bevin said some of the things he said.
In all honesty, Bevin wasn't wrong in his criticisms of public educators. Their actions in protesting at a business not even owned by the primary legislative author of the pension reform bill were misguided. They did put children at risk when they illegally called in sick so they could miss work and go to Frankfort to rally.
But perhaps the governor could have phrased some of his points a little better. Instead of saying that he was certain a child was molested or ingested poison or tried drugs because school was unexpectedly called off, he could have said something like this: "Parents can anticipate snow days and make plans for child care in advance. But when teachers decide the night before to call in sick en masse so they can attend a protest, and it forces school districts to cancel classes at the last minute, it forces parents to scramble to make plans for child care, and sometimes children can be left in less-than-ideal conditions because school was closed on short notice."
It's the same 100-percent true sentiment, but expressed in milder terms. (And Bevin's words did prove to be prophetic when a child was shot in Louisville on one of the sickout protest days when school was called off and kids were left at home.)
Teachers also didn't like being called out for their improper use of sick days to attend protests. Most public agencies differentiate between annual/personal/vacation days, which can be used for any purpose; and sick days, which are reserved for times when the employee or a child is sick or has a doctor's appointment, or for bereavement. Jefferson County even allows a certain number of teachers to miss a certain number of days a year for political or lobbying purposes.
What would happen if a state employee used sick leave instead of annual leave to go to Frankfort to protest lack of raises, insurance cost increases, or funding levels for their agency? Why should teachers not be held to the same standards?
Much of the discontent with Bevin came from the aforementioned Jefferson County. Louisvillians are quick to remind the rest of us that they are Kentucky's economic engine, and the rural areas of the commonwealth would be in sad shape if they weren't propping us up. The Jefferson County Teachers Association was one of the loudest pro-Beshear groups out there.
Yet, when rankings for all public schools were announced a couple of months ago, the bottom 20 in all three levels (elementary, middle, and high) was dominated by Jefferson County schools. How can that be? How can the richest county in the state, with all these great teachers, have such bad schools? And why does the JCTA so loudly oppose any reforms that might actually improve the state of education in the hub of Kentucky's economy?
The state's educational bureaucracy cast its lot with the son and ideological twin of the governor who neglected their pensions, instead of with the governor who tried to preserve pensions for current teachers and retirees and ensure a viable retirement system for future educators. They chose to support someone who will keep the educational status quo, instead of moving forward with reforms to improve schools and produce smarter, more prepared students.
They'll quickly find their support was misplaced. Beshear promised a $2,000 annual raise for teachers. Where is that money going to come from? There's no sentiment among the electorate for a tax increase, and gimmicks like casino gambling, sports betting, and drug legalization won't provide the necessary funding. Besides, teachers already get two raises a year -- an annual across-the-board percentage increase , and a "step increase" whereby their pay goes up for each year of seniority they accrue; a second-year teacher makes more than a first-year teacher, a seventh-year teacher makes more than a sixth-year teacher, and so on -- while state employees have had a net loss of pay over the last 12 years due to the Steve Beshear furloughs.
Under a friendly Republican administration, Kentucky's economy has grown the past four years. Beshear's Kentucky won't be nearly as attractive to job creators as was Bevin's Bluegrass State. If the state's growth slows or reverses, how will Beshear keep all his promises?
But the teachers had their tantrum last month, and they got their way. Kentucky's made a lot of progress the past four years, but they pressed the "pause" button on that to indulge their own hurt feelings. Too bad they had to harm the rest of the state in the process.
How did this happen? In a state that's trending Republican despite Democrats still holding an advantage in voter registration numbers, and in an election where every other Republican running for statewide office won by impressive numbers, how did an incumbent Republican who had the backing of a president who's immensely popular in the state manage to lose, especially with the state's economy bustling like never before?
There are a number of theories out there. One is that his tiff with Lt. Gov. Jeanene Hampton hurt him at the polls. Bevin alienated Hampton's supporters by not choosing her to run with him for a second time, and angered them when his administration fired members of her office staff, without consultation with or approval by her.
While that may have played a role in voting decisions by members of Hampton's inner circle -- Hampton herself admitted that she voted for Libertarian candidate John Hicks instead of Bevin -- it's doubtful that move itself cost the incumbent the race.
The night of the election, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky issued a classless statement saying it was pleased that its candidate had played spoiler and cost Bevin the election. Indeed, Hicks drew about 28,000 votes statewide, but it can't be ascertained for certain that all of those were votes that would otherwise have gone to Bevin. Libertarians tend to favor drug legalization, and Beshear had never indicated that he's for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs for recreational use. Hicks probably got his support from voters in both parties for whom being able to legally get stoned is their top-priority issue.
(It should be noted that the Libertarian Party also fielded a candidate in the auditor's race, who received more than 46,000 votes., so not even all Libertarian voters cast their ballots for Hicks.)
So again, how and why did this happen? Why did so many voters split their tickets to vote for Andy Beshear, yet picked every other Republican on the ballot?
The most correct answer is that Kentucky teachers threw a temper tantrum at the ballot box and voted against a candidate who was actually trying to ensure their pension system is solvent because they didn't like they way Bevin said some of the things he said.
In all honesty, Bevin wasn't wrong in his criticisms of public educators. Their actions in protesting at a business not even owned by the primary legislative author of the pension reform bill were misguided. They did put children at risk when they illegally called in sick so they could miss work and go to Frankfort to rally.
But perhaps the governor could have phrased some of his points a little better. Instead of saying that he was certain a child was molested or ingested poison or tried drugs because school was unexpectedly called off, he could have said something like this: "Parents can anticipate snow days and make plans for child care in advance. But when teachers decide the night before to call in sick en masse so they can attend a protest, and it forces school districts to cancel classes at the last minute, it forces parents to scramble to make plans for child care, and sometimes children can be left in less-than-ideal conditions because school was closed on short notice."
It's the same 100-percent true sentiment, but expressed in milder terms. (And Bevin's words did prove to be prophetic when a child was shot in Louisville on one of the sickout protest days when school was called off and kids were left at home.)
Teachers also didn't like being called out for their improper use of sick days to attend protests. Most public agencies differentiate between annual/personal/vacation days, which can be used for any purpose; and sick days, which are reserved for times when the employee or a child is sick or has a doctor's appointment, or for bereavement. Jefferson County even allows a certain number of teachers to miss a certain number of days a year for political or lobbying purposes.
What would happen if a state employee used sick leave instead of annual leave to go to Frankfort to protest lack of raises, insurance cost increases, or funding levels for their agency? Why should teachers not be held to the same standards?
Much of the discontent with Bevin came from the aforementioned Jefferson County. Louisvillians are quick to remind the rest of us that they are Kentucky's economic engine, and the rural areas of the commonwealth would be in sad shape if they weren't propping us up. The Jefferson County Teachers Association was one of the loudest pro-Beshear groups out there.
Yet, when rankings for all public schools were announced a couple of months ago, the bottom 20 in all three levels (elementary, middle, and high) was dominated by Jefferson County schools. How can that be? How can the richest county in the state, with all these great teachers, have such bad schools? And why does the JCTA so loudly oppose any reforms that might actually improve the state of education in the hub of Kentucky's economy?
The state's educational bureaucracy cast its lot with the son and ideological twin of the governor who neglected their pensions, instead of with the governor who tried to preserve pensions for current teachers and retirees and ensure a viable retirement system for future educators. They chose to support someone who will keep the educational status quo, instead of moving forward with reforms to improve schools and produce smarter, more prepared students.
They'll quickly find their support was misplaced. Beshear promised a $2,000 annual raise for teachers. Where is that money going to come from? There's no sentiment among the electorate for a tax increase, and gimmicks like casino gambling, sports betting, and drug legalization won't provide the necessary funding. Besides, teachers already get two raises a year -- an annual across-the-board percentage increase , and a "step increase" whereby their pay goes up for each year of seniority they accrue; a second-year teacher makes more than a first-year teacher, a seventh-year teacher makes more than a sixth-year teacher, and so on -- while state employees have had a net loss of pay over the last 12 years due to the Steve Beshear furloughs.
Under a friendly Republican administration, Kentucky's economy has grown the past four years. Beshear's Kentucky won't be nearly as attractive to job creators as was Bevin's Bluegrass State. If the state's growth slows or reverses, how will Beshear keep all his promises?
But the teachers had their tantrum last month, and they got their way. Kentucky's made a lot of progress the past four years, but they pressed the "pause" button on that to indulge their own hurt feelings. Too bad they had to harm the rest of the state in the process.
Monday, November 18, 2019
The "Deep State," defined
Since President Trump took office, the term "deep state" has become popularized in American political discourse. We've all seen it the phrase, and some of us have used it.
But what, exactly, is it?
I had a general idea of what the term is supposed to describe, but had never really given it a lot of detailed thought until I saw someone use it in a discussion, then someone else asked them what they regarded the "deep state" to be.
That caused me to ponder the definition of the phrase, and I think I have come up with something that's pretty accurate.
"Deep state" means government civil service employees who oppose the elected leadership on policy or political grounds, and work from within to impede, sabotage, or resist the implementation of those policies. It also refers to political appointees who take their positions with their own agenda in mind and with the intent of instituting their own policies, instead of supporting and implementing the policies of the elected executive official for whom they work.
This is about the best simple definition I can think of to describe what can be a very complex situation. Boiled down, it means that there are forces within the government who are trying to thwart the implementation of official policy and working against the policy makers.
Elected executive officers, such as the American president or a state's governor, are entitled to put their own policies and initiatives into place. They are chosen by the entire electorate of the governed territory, and not by districts as are legislators. Legislative bodies have oversight and bill passage responsibilities, and in most cases are responsible for adopting or approving budgets, but the executive is in charge of developing policies and setting the tone of government. The executive has a number of high-level appointees that serve at his or her pleasure who are also responsible for implementing and administering policy. They are expected to be loyal to the executive and work to do the executive's wishes, subjugating their own ideas and desires in the process.
Career civil servants -- Kentucky refers to them as merit employees, because their employment is governed by the merit system established in Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 18A -- are expected to implement and administer the policies dictated by the elected and appointed executives. These bureaucrats can, and often do, provide input into decisions. Many times, they're asked by the elected and appointed officials to weigh in on policies that are being considered. But in the end, whether they are in agreement with those decisions or not, it's their duty to do what they're told.
Yet so many of them won't carry out their duties. They stonewall, slow-walk, resist, and sometimes refuse to do their duty. They continue to operate as they see fit, or as they did under previous executives whose ideologies are more in tune with their own.
On the federal level, the "deep state" seems to be entrenched in the State Department and in the intelligence community. For whatever reason, diplomats seem to embrace a liberal philosophy. The career employees there seem to think they're still working for Barack Obama and implementing his foreign policy. The Trump administration has reversed course and has made it known that it's operating from a position that American interests come first. That doesn't seem to sit well with a lot of the diplomatic bureaucracy.
There's a "deep state" alive and well in Kentucky state government as well. Given the state's history of hiring Democrats, the majority of the workforce resisted the changes that recent Republican governors Ernie Fletcher and Matt Bevin tried to make in the way things have always been done. They didn't like their Republican governor or appointed agency leaders, so they weren't going to help them institute reforms.
In the private sector, any employee who doesn't carry out policy is usually disciplined or fired. Unfortunately, the same governmental policies that protect career employees from political retaliation also allow them to be insubordinate without much fear of reprise. The result is a seriously handicapped policy implementation, especially when conservatives are in power and liberals continue to populate the bowels of the bureaucracy.
At least when a political appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the president or governor, can be fired when they go rogue and start pushing their own agenda instead of what their boss wants. And no, it's not obstruction of justice when they do.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the "deep state." If anyone ever asks what you mean when you use that term, refer them to this definition. It may not be exact, but it's pretty close.
But what, exactly, is it?
I had a general idea of what the term is supposed to describe, but had never really given it a lot of detailed thought until I saw someone use it in a discussion, then someone else asked them what they regarded the "deep state" to be.
That caused me to ponder the definition of the phrase, and I think I have come up with something that's pretty accurate.
"Deep state" means government civil service employees who oppose the elected leadership on policy or political grounds, and work from within to impede, sabotage, or resist the implementation of those policies. It also refers to political appointees who take their positions with their own agenda in mind and with the intent of instituting their own policies, instead of supporting and implementing the policies of the elected executive official for whom they work.
This is about the best simple definition I can think of to describe what can be a very complex situation. Boiled down, it means that there are forces within the government who are trying to thwart the implementation of official policy and working against the policy makers.
Elected executive officers, such as the American president or a state's governor, are entitled to put their own policies and initiatives into place. They are chosen by the entire electorate of the governed territory, and not by districts as are legislators. Legislative bodies have oversight and bill passage responsibilities, and in most cases are responsible for adopting or approving budgets, but the executive is in charge of developing policies and setting the tone of government. The executive has a number of high-level appointees that serve at his or her pleasure who are also responsible for implementing and administering policy. They are expected to be loyal to the executive and work to do the executive's wishes, subjugating their own ideas and desires in the process.
Career civil servants -- Kentucky refers to them as merit employees, because their employment is governed by the merit system established in Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 18A -- are expected to implement and administer the policies dictated by the elected and appointed executives. These bureaucrats can, and often do, provide input into decisions. Many times, they're asked by the elected and appointed officials to weigh in on policies that are being considered. But in the end, whether they are in agreement with those decisions or not, it's their duty to do what they're told.
Yet so many of them won't carry out their duties. They stonewall, slow-walk, resist, and sometimes refuse to do their duty. They continue to operate as they see fit, or as they did under previous executives whose ideologies are more in tune with their own.
On the federal level, the "deep state" seems to be entrenched in the State Department and in the intelligence community. For whatever reason, diplomats seem to embrace a liberal philosophy. The career employees there seem to think they're still working for Barack Obama and implementing his foreign policy. The Trump administration has reversed course and has made it known that it's operating from a position that American interests come first. That doesn't seem to sit well with a lot of the diplomatic bureaucracy.
There's a "deep state" alive and well in Kentucky state government as well. Given the state's history of hiring Democrats, the majority of the workforce resisted the changes that recent Republican governors Ernie Fletcher and Matt Bevin tried to make in the way things have always been done. They didn't like their Republican governor or appointed agency leaders, so they weren't going to help them institute reforms.
In the private sector, any employee who doesn't carry out policy is usually disciplined or fired. Unfortunately, the same governmental policies that protect career employees from political retaliation also allow them to be insubordinate without much fear of reprise. The result is a seriously handicapped policy implementation, especially when conservatives are in power and liberals continue to populate the bowels of the bureaucracy.
At least when a political appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the president or governor, can be fired when they go rogue and start pushing their own agenda instead of what their boss wants. And no, it's not obstruction of justice when they do.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the "deep state." If anyone ever asks what you mean when you use that term, refer them to this definition. It may not be exact, but it's pretty close.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Decision time for Rocky Adkins
(Personal disclosure: I know Rocky Adkins. He's not what I would call a friend, but instead a college acquaintance. I went to school with him at Morehead State, but did not really know him and had no classes with him. My most lengthy interaction with him came the Saturday morning when we took the GRE test together. I've seen him in person once since then. So this is written from the perspective of an observer with no personal partiality except for my ideology, which runs counter to Adkins'.)
Rocky Adkins faces some big decisions, and they must come soon.
Does the longtime state representative from northeastern Kentucky step out and try to seek his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate seat next year that Mitch McConnell will be defending? Will he stay in the Kentucky House of Representatives and try to lead his party back from the crushing defeat it suffered in 2016? Or will he take a position in the administration of incoming Gov. Andy Beshear?
Whatever he does, he'll have to do it in the next few weeks. Beshear takes office Dec. 10, and he'll have to have most of his key staffers named before then and ready to take their jobs.
Adkins and Matt Jones were the Democrats most often mentioned as likely to try to knock off perceived front-runner Amy McGrath in the Senate primary. Jones' decision a few days ago not to run makes it easier for Adkins to compete with McGrath in a one-on-one campaign. There are a few other Democrats who have announced their plans to runs, but they're non-factors.
Right now, McGrath seems to be the favored candidate among the national liberal backers and funders, but many Kentucky Democrats who so desperately want McConnell beaten don't think she's the right candidate to do it. They believe she's too liberal for the rural voters who will make the decision in the election, and who have voted for candidates like McConnell, President Trump, and Gov. Matt Bevin in the past. They point to her inability to unseat Congressman Andy Barr last year in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district in what was a "blue wave" election across the country. She's plagued by a recording in which she states she's farther left than anyone else in the Bluegrass State.
Many think Adkins' rural roots will appeal to conservative Democrats out in the state who have been rejecting the party's candidates in recent elections. He's from Elliott County and still lives there, having returned home after a basketball career at Morehead State University. He has a down-home demeanor and charmed voters during his gubernatorial campaign, then on the stump for Beshear in the general election. You'll find a whole lot of people who think he stands a better chance of ousting McConnell than McGrath will.
But while rural voters may decide the general election, the urban electorate will decide the primary. And McGrath's liberalism will appeal to those in Lexington and especially Louisville, where the Democrats dominate. It would take those voters looking past the most ideologically pure candidate in favor of the one who would be most attractive in a general election contest against McConnell.
But while rural voters may decide the general election, the urban electorate will decide the primary. And McGrath's liberalism will appeal to those in Lexington and especially Louisville, where the Democrats dominate. It would take those voters looking past the most ideologically pure candidate in favor of the one who would be most attractive in a general election contest against McConnell.
Adkins inherited his party's leadership role in the Kentucky House of Representatives in 2017 after the stunning defeat of House Speaker Greg Stumbo. Republicans were hoping that Stumbo would lose his speaker's post if their party took control of the chamber, but got a pleasant surprise when Stumbo lost his re-election bid and had to watch from the sidelines as a Republican got handed the speaker's gavel. Adkins has done an admirable job of holding his dwindling caucus together in the face of GOP control.
Ordinarily, Adkins would have until Jan. 30 to decide whether to run for the Senate or seek re-election to the House. But Beshear's impending inauguration moves that timeline up considerably.
Given his role in Beshear's successful campaign, Adkins' name has been mentioned for a high-level appointed position in the incoming administration. He's most frequently been linked to the secretary's position in my agency, the Transportation Cabinet. (That certainly wouldn't do me any good personally, since Adkins and I are politically opposite.) But he's also been suggested as a candidate to be named Beshear's chief of staff, which seems to be the new title for the position formerly known as Secretary of the Executive Cabinet, which was the role in which Crit Luallen served under Gov. Paul Patton.
He'll have to make that decision soon. His name is conspicuously absent from the list of transition team members Beshear announced last week, which would indicate that he's in the running for an appointment since he won't be advising the governor on whom to appoint. And he certainly wouldn't take a top-level appointed job in December, just to leave it in January to go out on the campaign trail.
I don't know how much of a risk-taker Adkins is, but a Senate campaign would be the riskiest move he could make. He'd have to forego much of the upcoming General Assembly session, in which the legislature will adopt a biennial budget and a state highway plan, to start stumping. Even as Democrats continue to lose traction across the state, he's in one of the safest legislative seats in the commonwealth. Re-election to the House is a shoo-in. And if he opts for a six-figure appointed job, he'll pad his state pension and be eligible to run again for elective office once Beshear's term is up (hopefully in four years.)
The upside to staying in the House or going to work for Beshear 2.0 is much higher than giving up both those options to take a chance on running for Senate, and facing the onslaught of out-of-state money that will come pouring in to support McGrath.
Adkins has been mum about his plans, and I have yet to see him comment on Jones' decision not to run.
Thanksgiving comes late this year. It's less than two weeks from the gubernatorial inauguration. The guess here is that his decision will be made well before then, so any indecision won't give him indigestion as he and his family enjoy their turkey dinner. That means the clock is ticking, and we'll hear something by the end of this week.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
More signs pointing to Beshear 2.0
After last week's gubernatorial election, I posited that Andy Beshear's administration has the potential to be much like that of his father, Steve Beshear. I noted that father and son are pretty much ideological twins, and championed the same issues. I even coined a nickname for the son's term -- Beshear 2.0. I've actually seen some others use that phrase since I came up with it, so at least I know this message is getting out. (More than 8,300 views of that particular column as of this writing.)
Now there's even more signs that point to Beshear 2.0 being a new (but not necessarily improved) version of Beshear 1.0.
Earlier this week, the state announced that General Fund and Road Fund receipts were up in October, and both funds are running a surplus for the current fiscal year. This will give the incoming administration a financial windfall from which to work as it and the General Assembly craft a biennial budget in the upcoming legislative session. Beshear is hoping to generate even more revenue for the state through the approval of casino gambling, which will take both a constitutional amendment passing the General Assembly and approval by the voters at the ballot box. It was one of the issues on which he campaigned, although he's been cautioned by the Senate leadership that a gambling amendment won't be passed in that chamber.
Sound familiar?
When Ernie Fletcher left office in 2007 and Beshear 1.0 took over, Fletcher left the incoming governor a budget surplus. Steve Beshear had campaigned on bringing casino gambling to the commonwealth. Casino interests had funded his campaign, and he was seeking to pay back that investment. Almost immediately upon taking office, the new governor started poor-mouthing and saying the state didn't have enough money to meet its obligations. That's one of the reasons that he used to justify the state employee furloughs.
Looks like a pattern developing. A Beshear beats an Republican governor in his re-election bid after campaigning in support of casinos. The outgoing governor leaves a budget surplus. Wonder what comes next?
And for even more evidence that Beshear 2.0 is on the way, look at the transition team he announced this week. It contains a whole lot of retreads from the 1.0 administration, including at least one transition chair who's in charge of the cabinet where he was forced out as secretary because of more than a few fishy conflict-of-interest situations.
There are a few other transition team selections that could be very interesting fodder if the state's press corps was interested in doing its job and subjecting Democrats to the same scrutiny they give Republicans. But Kentucky's media wouldn't be interested in examining the presence of someone who had a politically appointed job during the Beshear 1.0 term, yet had been fired from their state job years prior because of some pretty questionable behavior, now would they? (Yes, I know who it is, and have some background on what they did. I heard the story in my college years and got some details just a few months ago that helped fill in a lot of blanks.)
More signs are pointing to Andy Beshear's term truly being Beshear 2.0. And he hasn't even taken office yet. That's not a good thing.
Now there's even more signs that point to Beshear 2.0 being a new (but not necessarily improved) version of Beshear 1.0.
Earlier this week, the state announced that General Fund and Road Fund receipts were up in October, and both funds are running a surplus for the current fiscal year. This will give the incoming administration a financial windfall from which to work as it and the General Assembly craft a biennial budget in the upcoming legislative session. Beshear is hoping to generate even more revenue for the state through the approval of casino gambling, which will take both a constitutional amendment passing the General Assembly and approval by the voters at the ballot box. It was one of the issues on which he campaigned, although he's been cautioned by the Senate leadership that a gambling amendment won't be passed in that chamber.
Sound familiar?
When Ernie Fletcher left office in 2007 and Beshear 1.0 took over, Fletcher left the incoming governor a budget surplus. Steve Beshear had campaigned on bringing casino gambling to the commonwealth. Casino interests had funded his campaign, and he was seeking to pay back that investment. Almost immediately upon taking office, the new governor started poor-mouthing and saying the state didn't have enough money to meet its obligations. That's one of the reasons that he used to justify the state employee furloughs.
Looks like a pattern developing. A Beshear beats an Republican governor in his re-election bid after campaigning in support of casinos. The outgoing governor leaves a budget surplus. Wonder what comes next?
And for even more evidence that Beshear 2.0 is on the way, look at the transition team he announced this week. It contains a whole lot of retreads from the 1.0 administration, including at least one transition chair who's in charge of the cabinet where he was forced out as secretary because of more than a few fishy conflict-of-interest situations.
There are a few other transition team selections that could be very interesting fodder if the state's press corps was interested in doing its job and subjecting Democrats to the same scrutiny they give Republicans. But Kentucky's media wouldn't be interested in examining the presence of someone who had a politically appointed job during the Beshear 1.0 term, yet had been fired from their state job years prior because of some pretty questionable behavior, now would they? (Yes, I know who it is, and have some background on what they did. I heard the story in my college years and got some details just a few months ago that helped fill in a lot of blanks.)
More signs are pointing to Andy Beshear's term truly being Beshear 2.0. And he hasn't even taken office yet. That's not a good thing.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Common sense and a fragile ego, or greed and an oversized ego: Which won out in Matt Jones' decision?
Outside of the fallout from Kentucky's gubernatorial election, the biggest political news in the state broke Friday, when Matt Jones announced that he would not run in next year's Democrat primary for the chance to unseat U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Jones had been publicly toying with running for Senate for months, and his indecision was beginning to hit him in the bank account. He'd already been ousted as host of the "Hey Kentucky" television show on WLEX-TV in Lexington. Last week, he had to step away from his role on the Kentucky Sports Radio statewide program that discusses University of Kentucky sports when Jones isn't bleating about politics, after the Republican Party of Kentucky filed a complaint alleging that Jones' work on KSR amounts to an illegal corporate campaign contribution.
Even before Jones made his political ideology known, I wasn't a fan. I haven't worked as sportswriter for years, but I still have some friends in the business. They tell me Jones is one of the most disliked presences on the UK sports beat. He's not popular on press row; everyone who's ever discussed him with me talks about how arrogant and egotistical he is.
(Don't believe me? Read these Herald-Leader and Courier-Journal profiles of Jones and KSR for some unflattering views.)
Jones hails from southeastern Kentucky, the same general area as a couple of true legends of Wildcat journalism, those being Oscar Combs and Cawood Ledford. Although Jones has built a popular statewide radio show, he'll never enjoy the stature that Combs and Ledford have in the annals of UK broadcasting. And that knowledge has to eat at him daily. (I'm told by some who've covered the Cats in the past that Ledford wasn't exactly beloved among those who dealt with him on press row either, but he had a reputation that Jones will never have.)
Somewhere along the line, his sports show detoured into politics. Jones has been hugely critical of conservative Republicans despite the fact that his mother was a Republican elected official in Bell County for years. How did his apple roll so far from the family tree? Was it from the years he spent practicing law in Louisville? Or maybe during his years as a student at -- wait for it -- Duke? (Yes, Matt Jones, rabid Kentucky Wildcats fan, is a Dukie.)
One of Jones' favorite political targets has been McConnell, and he's in the process of writing a book critical of the Senate majority leader. He's been flirting with entering a political for a while now.
Seems that he'll be waiting a bit longer.
Right now, the front-runner for the nomination is Amy McGrath, the failed congressional candidate who couldn't beat a Republican incumbent in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district in a "blue wave" election year. Jones has been saying for awhile now that although he thinks McConnell can be beaten and needs to be beaten, McGrath isn't the candidate to do it. Apparently, Jones realized that he's not the candidate to do it either.
Why? Two guesses here. First is that Jones didn't want to take the financial hit that being away from his KSR show would involve. "Hey Kentucky" has already moved on with a new host, so he'll have to find a new television outlet if he desires. After his short involuntary break from KSR, Jones will be back on the radio briefly, then plans to take an extended vacation. Once he comes back, he can once again be in the spotlight. His adoring fandom can continue to stroke his ego and welcome him back.
A-ha. There's that question of that ego. It's obvious that Jones craves the adulation that UK fans give him. But someone must have advised him that his personal popularity and name recognition wouldn't necessarily translate into success at the ballot box. Heather French Henry, Kentucky's former Miss America, found that out last week. Presuming McConnell's the nominee, any campaign involving him will be expensive and nasty. A loss would be humiliating. And he wasn't guaranteed the nomination. Most of the big out-of-state money and support are already committed to McGrath, and at least one other formidable possible Democrat candidate (Rocky Adkins) is still on the fence. Had Jones won the primary, he'd be on the ballot next year as a Democrat in a state that has huge Donald Trump coattails. Did he wise up and decide not to subject his ego to being popped by the electorate of a state that's increasingly rejecting his ideology?
As stated before, I'm not a KSR fan. I don't quite understand the show's popularity. It's as if UK fans are lapping up anything relating to the Big Blue without regard to its source. I find Jones to be irritating, over the top, and obnoxious. I don't listen to him, and I try not to even click on a link to the KSR website. If I do, it's usually an accident and I didn't look to see where the link led. So I wasn't out there tweeting #FreeMattJones after he went off the air following the Federal Election Commission complaint.
But at least, there will be no more "will he or won't he" speculation from Kentucky's political pundits. That decision has been made. McGrath's path to the nomination may have gotten easier, but Jones will still have his microphone to criticize both her and McConnell nonstop on his sports show, with the occasional lament about how John Calipari's teams can't shoot free throws, or if last year was the best level of success that the football team can hope for.
Jones had been publicly toying with running for Senate for months, and his indecision was beginning to hit him in the bank account. He'd already been ousted as host of the "Hey Kentucky" television show on WLEX-TV in Lexington. Last week, he had to step away from his role on the Kentucky Sports Radio statewide program that discusses University of Kentucky sports when Jones isn't bleating about politics, after the Republican Party of Kentucky filed a complaint alleging that Jones' work on KSR amounts to an illegal corporate campaign contribution.
Even before Jones made his political ideology known, I wasn't a fan. I haven't worked as sportswriter for years, but I still have some friends in the business. They tell me Jones is one of the most disliked presences on the UK sports beat. He's not popular on press row; everyone who's ever discussed him with me talks about how arrogant and egotistical he is.
(Don't believe me? Read these Herald-Leader and Courier-Journal profiles of Jones and KSR for some unflattering views.)
Jones hails from southeastern Kentucky, the same general area as a couple of true legends of Wildcat journalism, those being Oscar Combs and Cawood Ledford. Although Jones has built a popular statewide radio show, he'll never enjoy the stature that Combs and Ledford have in the annals of UK broadcasting. And that knowledge has to eat at him daily. (I'm told by some who've covered the Cats in the past that Ledford wasn't exactly beloved among those who dealt with him on press row either, but he had a reputation that Jones will never have.)
Somewhere along the line, his sports show detoured into politics. Jones has been hugely critical of conservative Republicans despite the fact that his mother was a Republican elected official in Bell County for years. How did his apple roll so far from the family tree? Was it from the years he spent practicing law in Louisville? Or maybe during his years as a student at -- wait for it -- Duke? (Yes, Matt Jones, rabid Kentucky Wildcats fan, is a Dukie.)
One of Jones' favorite political targets has been McConnell, and he's in the process of writing a book critical of the Senate majority leader. He's been flirting with entering a political for a while now.
Seems that he'll be waiting a bit longer.
Right now, the front-runner for the nomination is Amy McGrath, the failed congressional candidate who couldn't beat a Republican incumbent in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district in a "blue wave" election year. Jones has been saying for awhile now that although he thinks McConnell can be beaten and needs to be beaten, McGrath isn't the candidate to do it. Apparently, Jones realized that he's not the candidate to do it either.
Why? Two guesses here. First is that Jones didn't want to take the financial hit that being away from his KSR show would involve. "Hey Kentucky" has already moved on with a new host, so he'll have to find a new television outlet if he desires. After his short involuntary break from KSR, Jones will be back on the radio briefly, then plans to take an extended vacation. Once he comes back, he can once again be in the spotlight. His adoring fandom can continue to stroke his ego and welcome him back.
A-ha. There's that question of that ego. It's obvious that Jones craves the adulation that UK fans give him. But someone must have advised him that his personal popularity and name recognition wouldn't necessarily translate into success at the ballot box. Heather French Henry, Kentucky's former Miss America, found that out last week. Presuming McConnell's the nominee, any campaign involving him will be expensive and nasty. A loss would be humiliating. And he wasn't guaranteed the nomination. Most of the big out-of-state money and support are already committed to McGrath, and at least one other formidable possible Democrat candidate (Rocky Adkins) is still on the fence. Had Jones won the primary, he'd be on the ballot next year as a Democrat in a state that has huge Donald Trump coattails. Did he wise up and decide not to subject his ego to being popped by the electorate of a state that's increasingly rejecting his ideology?
As stated before, I'm not a KSR fan. I don't quite understand the show's popularity. It's as if UK fans are lapping up anything relating to the Big Blue without regard to its source. I find Jones to be irritating, over the top, and obnoxious. I don't listen to him, and I try not to even click on a link to the KSR website. If I do, it's usually an accident and I didn't look to see where the link led. So I wasn't out there tweeting #FreeMattJones after he went off the air following the Federal Election Commission complaint.
But at least, there will be no more "will he or won't he" speculation from Kentucky's political pundits. That decision has been made. McGrath's path to the nomination may have gotten easier, but Jones will still have his microphone to criticize both her and McConnell nonstop on his sports show, with the occasional lament about how John Calipari's teams can't shoot free throws, or if last year was the best level of success that the football team can hope for.
Success should be praised, not punished
Walmart and Dollar General are the epitome of American success stories.
Both started out as lone businesses in small towns, and ended up as huge corporations.
Walmart, as everyone knows, is the retail king in the United States. Dollar General has been a staple of county seats in this region for decades, is rapidly expanding, and you can find multiple stores in some rural counties where Walmart will never locate. My home county recently got its second DG location. In adjacent Estill County, only a half-hour from the larger retail centers of Richmond and Winchester, there are four of what some old-timers call "General Dollar."
There are some similarities. Walmart got its start in Bentonville, Ark., in the shadows of the Ozarks. Dollar General was founded in Scottsville, Ky., in the Appalachian foothills of south-central Kentucky, after the Turner family began the concept by converting their general merchanside store in Springfield, Ky., into a Dollar General. Both of these are smaller, mostly rural states in flyover country, far from the corporate capitals of the country.
Walmart has remained headquartered in Bentonville, causing that town to grow at a decent clip. Dollar General relocated from Scottsville to the suburbs of nearby Nashville a few years ago, probably because of Tennessee's more-business-friendly tax structure, but still maintains a decent presence in its hometown.
Neither Sam Walton nor J.L. and Cal Turner could foresee what their retail ventures would turn into. They were probably amazed at the success of their concept. There are hundreds of other instances of family-owned businesses growing from a single store or a handful of locations into a regional or national chain.
And it's this kind of success that conservatives should be championing and promoting, not criticizing. There's no reason the next Walmart isn't opening up on some street corner or some strip mall in some small town in some rural county somewhere between the coasts.
That's why it was disturbing to see Republican U.S. Senate candidate Wesley Morgan criticize both Walmart and Dollar General in a recent social media post. Morgan is a former state representative from Madison County who lost his seat when he ran afoul of Kentucky's former House leadership and drew an establishment-backed primary challenger. He owns a handful of liquor stores, including one of the two that opened in Irvine when that city went wet a few years ago. Unless something happens between now and next May, I fully intend to support and vote for him in the Republican primary. But his criticism of two American success stories bothers me.
Morgan is touting himself as the conservative alternative to Mitch McConnell, who's definitely the personification of "establishment Republican." In his social media posting that was critical of Walmart and Dollar General, he said he would be supportive of small businesses. Isn't it possible to support small businesses without being critical of bigger ones?
Oftimes, small businesses can't compete with bigger chains on price, so they have to rely on something else. Dollar General can't sell merchandise as cheaply as Walmart, so it counters by having more convenient locations. If you can pick up something at Dollar General on your way home, it can be worth it to pay a little more instead of driving to the nearest Walmart. And that's often the lure of independent businesses. Pay a little more in your hometown instead of traveling to a bigger city to shop at a big box. Customer service is another drawing card for small outlets, as is stocking unusual or hard-to-find items. Sometimes you can't find some exotic food item in a Walmart Supercenter, but your local grocer either has it on the shelf, or can order it for you.
The point here is that conservatives are champions of the free market. We don't take sides. We let the market sort things out. We support equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If Sam Walton or the Turner family can find success, there's no reason the hometown entrepreneur down the street from you can't do the same if they see fit.
Some small business owners are happy to run one or two locations and have no designs on expansion. Others would love to take their stores regional or national. We should be supporting them all and criticizing none of them -- and in the case of Dollar General, proud that a Kentucky-founded company is enjoying such success. DG is adding to the employment rolls and tax base in counties all over Kentucky. We should appreciate that.
Both started out as lone businesses in small towns, and ended up as huge corporations.
Walmart, as everyone knows, is the retail king in the United States. Dollar General has been a staple of county seats in this region for decades, is rapidly expanding, and you can find multiple stores in some rural counties where Walmart will never locate. My home county recently got its second DG location. In adjacent Estill County, only a half-hour from the larger retail centers of Richmond and Winchester, there are four of what some old-timers call "General Dollar."
There are some similarities. Walmart got its start in Bentonville, Ark., in the shadows of the Ozarks. Dollar General was founded in Scottsville, Ky., in the Appalachian foothills of south-central Kentucky, after the Turner family began the concept by converting their general merchanside store in Springfield, Ky., into a Dollar General. Both of these are smaller, mostly rural states in flyover country, far from the corporate capitals of the country.
Walmart has remained headquartered in Bentonville, causing that town to grow at a decent clip. Dollar General relocated from Scottsville to the suburbs of nearby Nashville a few years ago, probably because of Tennessee's more-business-friendly tax structure, but still maintains a decent presence in its hometown.
Neither Sam Walton nor J.L. and Cal Turner could foresee what their retail ventures would turn into. They were probably amazed at the success of their concept. There are hundreds of other instances of family-owned businesses growing from a single store or a handful of locations into a regional or national chain.
And it's this kind of success that conservatives should be championing and promoting, not criticizing. There's no reason the next Walmart isn't opening up on some street corner or some strip mall in some small town in some rural county somewhere between the coasts.
That's why it was disturbing to see Republican U.S. Senate candidate Wesley Morgan criticize both Walmart and Dollar General in a recent social media post. Morgan is a former state representative from Madison County who lost his seat when he ran afoul of Kentucky's former House leadership and drew an establishment-backed primary challenger. He owns a handful of liquor stores, including one of the two that opened in Irvine when that city went wet a few years ago. Unless something happens between now and next May, I fully intend to support and vote for him in the Republican primary. But his criticism of two American success stories bothers me.
Morgan is touting himself as the conservative alternative to Mitch McConnell, who's definitely the personification of "establishment Republican." In his social media posting that was critical of Walmart and Dollar General, he said he would be supportive of small businesses. Isn't it possible to support small businesses without being critical of bigger ones?
Oftimes, small businesses can't compete with bigger chains on price, so they have to rely on something else. Dollar General can't sell merchandise as cheaply as Walmart, so it counters by having more convenient locations. If you can pick up something at Dollar General on your way home, it can be worth it to pay a little more instead of driving to the nearest Walmart. And that's often the lure of independent businesses. Pay a little more in your hometown instead of traveling to a bigger city to shop at a big box. Customer service is another drawing card for small outlets, as is stocking unusual or hard-to-find items. Sometimes you can't find some exotic food item in a Walmart Supercenter, but your local grocer either has it on the shelf, or can order it for you.
The point here is that conservatives are champions of the free market. We don't take sides. We let the market sort things out. We support equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If Sam Walton or the Turner family can find success, there's no reason the hometown entrepreneur down the street from you can't do the same if they see fit.
Some small business owners are happy to run one or two locations and have no designs on expansion. Others would love to take their stores regional or national. We should be supporting them all and criticizing none of them -- and in the case of Dollar General, proud that a Kentucky-founded company is enjoying such success. DG is adding to the employment rolls and tax base in counties all over Kentucky. We should appreciate that.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Conservatives continue to face obstacles in their quest to make their points
If you want to get a reaction from a liberal, just say that the news is slanted in their favor. They'll deny the leftward tilt, even as newspaper after newspaper, and broadcast outlet after broadcast outlet, continues to skew its coverage in favor of the left and offers opinion pieces and editorials that bash President Trump and Republicans in government on a daily basis.
In Kentucky, the two leading daily newspapers have relentlessly gone after Gov. Matt Bevin since he's been in office. They also failed to adequately cover Greg Stumbo's abuse of power during his term as attorney general. Both papers endorsed both Andy Beshear for governor and Stumbo for attorney general, and after the election, one of the Courier-Journal's news reporters wrote an opinion column gloating over Bevin's loss.
Conservatives have Fox News (actually, that's on a decreasing basis these days outside the prime-time pundit lineup), Sinclair Broadcasting, and powerful radio talk shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others. There are a few websites out there, notably Breitbart and RedState, but not as many as what's on the other side. And that's pretty much it. Liberals dominate the rest of the media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the news wings of the major broadcast networks, a whole lot of online outlets (Politico, Slate, Salon, Mediaite, the Huffington Post, and the list goes on) and just about everywhere else. Even The Wall Street Journal is no longer reliably conservative, leaning more toward an establishment position on many issues. And many of what were formerly staunchly conservative/Republican venues have gone in the tank for the "never Trumpers" to the point they're more left than right these days.
The uphill climb extends to social media. Many users of Facebook and Twitter have complained of posts being removed, "shadow banning," the reach of conservative pages being throttled, increasingly tightening definitions of "hate speech" to include such things as espousing deeply-held religious views, and what have you. Management at those two companies deny they are censoring rightist views, but there's just too much evidence out there that proves otherwise.
And last week, Facebook pretty much confirmed all the suspicions when it announced that it would no longer allow mentions of the widely-known name of the whistleblower whose hatred for Trump initiated the impeachment inquiry.
The whistleblower's name has been frequently reported in some media outlets. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a news story that identified him. But Facebook is not allowing the sharing of those stories, even from legitimate sources such as The Washington Examiner.
Even a mention of his name without any context whatsoever will be removed, which is something I found out when I posted his name only without any other information. No news story, no noting of him as the whistleblower. Just the name.
Anyone with a critical eye knows the impeachment is fraudulent. The whistleblower is a known Joe Biden fan who didn't like something he heard during Trump's infamous phone call, and decided that he needed to complain about it. He's just another of those who overstepped his authority in an attempt to overturn an action with which he disagrees by a superior whom he doesn't like. He's the latest example to prove that the Deep State really does exist and is seeking to undermine the president's policies. He should be called to account and explain to the public why he felt Trump's comment was wrong and needed to be reported, when there were several others who were on the call who had no issues with it.
The real issue remains Biden's admitted personal intervention to get the Ukrainian prosector fired in order to secure the release of American funding. If anyone needs to be impeached, Biden should be retroactively.
During Trump's rally in Lexington last week, Sen. Rand Paul stole the show with his demand that the press do its job and name the whistleblower and hold him to the same scrutiny as it does Trump's supporters and defenders. You can still hear the crickets chirping, though, as the mainstream press hasn't seen fit to do any investigating into what's now commonly-known information. And even if the NYT or WaPo decided to name him, Facebook wouldn't allow those stories to be shared.
Had this been an insider blowing the whistle on something President Obama did, you can be sure they would be rushing to identify him and impugn his motives. But with the roles reverse, they feel obligated to protect his identity.
So the uphill battle continues. Conservatives continue facing obstacles in getting their information and opinions out. It just serves to build the mistrust we have in the mainstream press. When we can't count on the media to present all sides of the issues, we look elsewhere.
In Kentucky, the two leading daily newspapers have relentlessly gone after Gov. Matt Bevin since he's been in office. They also failed to adequately cover Greg Stumbo's abuse of power during his term as attorney general. Both papers endorsed both Andy Beshear for governor and Stumbo for attorney general, and after the election, one of the Courier-Journal's news reporters wrote an opinion column gloating over Bevin's loss.
Conservatives have Fox News (actually, that's on a decreasing basis these days outside the prime-time pundit lineup), Sinclair Broadcasting, and powerful radio talk shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others. There are a few websites out there, notably Breitbart and RedState, but not as many as what's on the other side. And that's pretty much it. Liberals dominate the rest of the media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the news wings of the major broadcast networks, a whole lot of online outlets (Politico, Slate, Salon, Mediaite, the Huffington Post, and the list goes on) and just about everywhere else. Even The Wall Street Journal is no longer reliably conservative, leaning more toward an establishment position on many issues. And many of what were formerly staunchly conservative/Republican venues have gone in the tank for the "never Trumpers" to the point they're more left than right these days.
The uphill climb extends to social media. Many users of Facebook and Twitter have complained of posts being removed, "shadow banning," the reach of conservative pages being throttled, increasingly tightening definitions of "hate speech" to include such things as espousing deeply-held religious views, and what have you. Management at those two companies deny they are censoring rightist views, but there's just too much evidence out there that proves otherwise.
And last week, Facebook pretty much confirmed all the suspicions when it announced that it would no longer allow mentions of the widely-known name of the whistleblower whose hatred for Trump initiated the impeachment inquiry.
The whistleblower's name has been frequently reported in some media outlets. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a news story that identified him. But Facebook is not allowing the sharing of those stories, even from legitimate sources such as The Washington Examiner.
Even a mention of his name without any context whatsoever will be removed, which is something I found out when I posted his name only without any other information. No news story, no noting of him as the whistleblower. Just the name.
Anyone with a critical eye knows the impeachment is fraudulent. The whistleblower is a known Joe Biden fan who didn't like something he heard during Trump's infamous phone call, and decided that he needed to complain about it. He's just another of those who overstepped his authority in an attempt to overturn an action with which he disagrees by a superior whom he doesn't like. He's the latest example to prove that the Deep State really does exist and is seeking to undermine the president's policies. He should be called to account and explain to the public why he felt Trump's comment was wrong and needed to be reported, when there were several others who were on the call who had no issues with it.
The real issue remains Biden's admitted personal intervention to get the Ukrainian prosector fired in order to secure the release of American funding. If anyone needs to be impeached, Biden should be retroactively.
During Trump's rally in Lexington last week, Sen. Rand Paul stole the show with his demand that the press do its job and name the whistleblower and hold him to the same scrutiny as it does Trump's supporters and defenders. You can still hear the crickets chirping, though, as the mainstream press hasn't seen fit to do any investigating into what's now commonly-known information. And even if the NYT or WaPo decided to name him, Facebook wouldn't allow those stories to be shared.
Had this been an insider blowing the whistle on something President Obama did, you can be sure they would be rushing to identify him and impugn his motives. But with the roles reverse, they feel obligated to protect his identity.
So the uphill battle continues. Conservatives continue facing obstacles in getting their information and opinions out. It just serves to build the mistrust we have in the mainstream press. When we can't count on the media to present all sides of the issues, we look elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)