Some leftovers from the recent election

As many Kentuckians get ready to give thanks that a new governor will be taking office in a couple of weeks, let me help you get ready for the holiday season by serving up some leftovers from this month’s election.

*****

By now, the tired old false rhetoric from the left should come as no surprise. Liberals continue to insist that conservatives hate females and minorities. Opposition to abortion on demand as a form of elective birth control is termed a “war on women.” Efforts to protect the integrity of elections are declared “racist” and an attempt to suppress the votes of blacks. Even positives are turned into negatives by those on the left looking to demonize conservatives. When Mitt Romney talked during his 2012 presidential campaign about actively recruiting women to work in his gubernatorial administration in Massachusetts and collecting their resumes, somehow having “binders full of women” job applicants became a bad thing.

The same untrue narrative made its way to Kentucky’s statewide races this year. Apparently those trying to tear down Republicans didn’t pay very much attention to the election results.

In case you didn’t notice, two of the Republicans elected to statewide offices are women. And one of them, Lt. Gov-elect Jenean Hampton, just happens to be the first black ever to win a statewide election in the Bluegrass State. Hampton and Treasurer-elect Allison Ball are success stories. Yet their wins appear insignificant to Kentucky Democrats. They’ve belittled Hampton’s victory by implying that voters who supported her ticket with Gov.-elect Matt Bevin didn’t know she was black, as they continue to claim that Bevin won because of racially-motivated animus against President Barack Obama, whose father was black. Rubbish. It’s doubtful that many, if any, Bevin voters weren’t aware of Hampton’s race. Yet the party that just elected a black lieutenant governor is somehow racist. Unbelievable.

Further proof of the true diversity of conservatives can be found in the presidential candidate field currently vying for the GOP nomination. Three of the top-tier candidates are minorities (Ben Carson is black; Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Hispanic). Bobby Jindal, who quit the race last week, was another minority candidate. Carly Fiorina is female. Youth is also well-served in the Republican field.

Despite evidence to the contrary proving the claims of the left wrong, they keep on insisting that Republicans hate women and minorities. Hampton and Ball are probably enjoying a good chuckle every time they hear that worn out falsehood.

*****

As the campaign wound down, I started to wonder if Jack Conway himself even believed he was qualified to be governor. That’s because he and his surrogates rarely talked about his positive attributes. Instead, they were constantly on television attacking Bevin.

Candidates say they don’t like to use negative advertising, but they have to because it works. Turns out it didn’t work out so well for Conway.

Conway said very little about why he wanted to be governor, what he intended to do or what qualifications he possessed. One of the few positive traits he bragged about was being a lifelong Kentuckian, which was an obvious dig at Bevin because Bevin’s not a Kentucky native.

Wonder how Brereton Jones, the former Democratic governor in whose footsteps Conway wanted to follow, felt about that? Jones isn’t a Kentucky native either, and I don’t recall Larry Hopkins using that against Jones in the 1991 gubernatorial campaign.

There’s evidence that voters tired of Conway’s attacks against Bevin, especially since he never offered his own positives. It’s reminiscent of Conway’s failed 2010 U.S. Senate campaign, when he turned the unproven and unverifiable “Aqua Buddha” allegation against Rand Paul into a television ad, and it backfired.

Conway ran a terrible campaign. He didn’t connect with the voters on a personal level. Bevin did. Despite being branded by his detractors as an out-of-touch rich carpetbagger from the Northeast, Bevin was able to relate to everyday Kentuckians. And they were able to relate to him. I’ve heard stories about Bevin’s interaction with people as he campaigned across the state. Those interactions were 180 degrees different from the interactions with reporters that many of them were so eager to write about.

Several pundits have theorized that Conway’s career in politics is over. I wouldn’t be so fast to write him off. After all, outgoing Gov. Steve Beshear fashioned a political comeback several years after a couple of statewide losses. But Conway would do well, if he ever runs again, to forego the negative campaigns and try to focus on his positives. He’s now been burned twice by attacking his opponents instead of promoting his strengths.

*****

Another politician who may have been bitten by the negative advertising bug is Adam Edelen, who lost his re-election bid for auditor to State. Rep. Mike Harmon in what was widely viewed as an upset.

Edelen ran an over-the-top television ad late in the campaign, attempting to portray Harmon as some sort of living-the-high-life party boy who had himself a good time on the state’s dime. There was never any real evidence to back up those charges, especially one that depicted Harmon drinking and living it up.

Edelen was regarded as one of his party’s rising stars, and the same pundits who have now written Conway off think Edelen will be able to come back from his loss. Those who supported Edelen pointed to what they called a successful term as auditor. They should have counseled Edelen to run on that record instead of coming out with a nonsensical attack on Harmon. Edelen’s loss was arguably the low point on a bad election night for Kentucky Democrats. With a little care, they could have avoided it.

*****

Here’s wishing everyone a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Take time to thank God for your blessings.

Outrageous voter-fraud conspiracy proves outsiders should steer clear of Kentucky politics; not speak about things of which they’re ignorant

I had intended to use this space for a cursory analysis of the Kentucky statewide elections, which saw Republicans take the governor’s race for only the second time in the last four decades, and then offer a few ideas for Gov.-elect Matt Bevin’s administration as he moves forward.

But when I saw the completely off-the-wall conspiracy theory, posted on a couple of lunatic left-wing websites, that Bevin won only through massive voter fraud, I had to laugh.

Kentucky politics aren’t well-understood by outsiders. I’ve had many conversations with people who think the Bluegrass State is dominated by Republicans since the state has of late tended to vote for GOP candidates in federal elections. Out-of-staters don’t understand what a grip the Democrats have held on state government and many local governments as well. Twice last week I heard Bevin say on national radio shows that 72 percent of elected officials in Kentucky are Democrats, and despite gains in voter registration numbers, fewer than 40 percent of the state’s electorate checked the “R” box on their registration form.

Sadly, even some Kentuckians have bought into the election fraud theory. When someone posted a petition on change.org, demanding a federal investigation into the gubernatorial election results, a number of Kentuckians echoed that sentiment. They must not have been paying attention to what had been going on in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 3 election, or they’d be ashamed of their silliness.

Those who are alleging election fraud point to two main facts. First is that the election results were misaligned with polls that indicated Bevin would lose to Jack Conway. Those same polls got last year’s U.S. Senate race between Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes wrong as well. They tend to oversample Democrats, and the media outlets that commission the Bluegrass State Poll have made it known they’ll use another pollster in future years.

The second bit of “proof” that the election was tampered with, they claim, is that down-ballot candidates got more votes than did Conway, who topped his party’s ticket. They say this is unusual. In fact, it’s not unusual at all. In the last two gubernatorial elections proceeding this year’s, the Republican candidate for agriculture commissioner (Richie Farmer in 2007 and Jamie Comer in 2011) far outpaced the Democratic gubernatorial nominee. And the two Democrats who did win statewide elections have well-known fathers. Andy Beshear is the son of sitting governor Steve Beshear. And Alison Lundergan Grimes is the daughter of longtime party operative and former Democrat chairman Jerry Lundergan. The names Beshear and Lundergan carry a lot of weight in “D” circles in Kentucky, and both candidates had a great deal of name recognition. Even though Steve Beshear and Jerry Lundergan don’t like each other very much, they are the leaders of the state’s Democrats, so it’s natural that support would flow to their children.

To further display their cluelessness, the conspiracy theorists said the election had been rigged by GOP insiders. What more proof does one need than that statement that they have no clue what happened? As secretary of state, Grimes is in charge of elections in Kentucky. It’s highly unlikely that she would allow Republicans to steal a race. And Bevin was not exactly the darling of the Republican establishment in Kentucky. He beat Comer, the establishment’s preferred candidate, in the primary; but more importantly, he dared to challenge Mitch McConnell in last year’s U.S. Senate primary. He ran a doggedly independent race against Conway, and some observers even speculated that the party’s hierarchy wasn’t 100 percent in support of him because they felt if he won, it would make “flipping” the House of Representatives to a Republican majority that much harder.

Why, then, did Bevin surprise the pollsters and sweep to victory and leave liberals scrambling to invent out-in-left-field reasons for the result? Lots of pundits have put forth their theories, but there’s a simple explanation that sums it up. In short, Bevin outworked Conway. Anytime there was a candidate forum, a public gathering, a small town festival or parade or other event, it seemed Bevin was there, and Conway wasn’t. Bevin went out and connected with the people of Kentucky. Conway ignored advice from his own party that he needed to be a better retail politician. While Conway spent time with rich donors who didn’t need to be convinced to vote for him, Bevin went straight to the people. Bevin ran a great campaign and Conway was terrible.

Of course, issues played a role. Obamacare, religious freedom and support of Kentucky’s coal industry were key. So were taxes, jobs and education. In numbers greater than anyone expected, the voters who did turn out decided overwhelmingly that the party that’s controlled Kentucky for decades has done a poor job, and gave the reins to someone else.

So shortly after midnight on Dec. 8, Matt Bevin will take the oath of office as governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He’ll have to plunge immediately into the dual tasks of setting up his administration and preparing for a legislative session. Make no mistake: He earned this opportunity, and this responsibility, honorably and honestly. Nothing fishy happened here, despite what some leftists who are distant from Kentucky and disconnected from reality might have you believe.

Time for reform in Kentucky’s statewide elections

Now that Kentucky has elected its leaders for the next four years – and shocked the world by electing Republicans to a majority of statewide offices for the first time in anyone’s memory – it’s time for the state to seriously look at some reforms designed to increase voter participation, streamline government and reduce expenditures.

This state elects too many officials, on both the statewide and local levels. Most of those elected positions should be hired jobs instead, whether through executive appointments or civil-service employment. With the state elections fresh in everyone’s mind, let’s take a look at the changes that need to be made in the process.

Commissioner of Agriculture: Kentucky doesn’t elect its highway commissioner, its property tax commissioner or its state police commissioner. It also traded in its elected superintendent of public instruction for an appointed education commissioner several years ago. Why should it elect its agriculture commissioner? While agriculture is still an important economic generator for the state, its days of dominance as the state’s leading industry are past. Plus, it often happens that the interests of the governor and the separately elected agriculture commissioner are at odds. This causes duplicity in state services, as there also is a Governor’s Office of Agriculture Policy in addition to the Department of Agriculture. It’s time to eliminate the elected position of agriculture commissioner, make it a gubernatorial appointment, and roll the Department of Agriculture into an existing cabinet, or make it a cabinet-level agency.

State Treasurer and Secretary of State: These offices provide administrative functions that could easily be absorbed by other agencies. The treasurer’s duties would be a natural fit for an administrative or revenue collection office. The secretary of state’s duties could easily be divided among other agencies, as well. Election oversight could be transferred to the State Board of Elections, and business registration would be a natural fit in any of several cabinets or departments. Doing away with these positions as elected offices would also eliminate the possibility of politicians using them as stepping stones for higher office. This used to be standard operating procedure in Kentucky back when officeholders were limited to one four-year term in any position. Politicians played musical chairs with the minor elected offices. They’d spend four years in one office, then move to another office for a single term, then to another office, and then the cycle would either rotate back or they’d seek the governorship. We can probably expect Alison Lundergan Grimes, who was just re-elected as secretary of state, to run for governor in four years.

Auditor of Public Accounts and Attorney General: These positions are a little trickier. There are lots who advocate eliminating the other three lower-level statewide offices but want to keep these positions independently elected because they perform a watchdog function on the executive branch. But there is a simple solution to that: Use the federal model. Make these positions gubernatorial appointments, like the others previously listed, but make the appointees subject to confirmation by the Senate. The auditor, like the treasurer, could probably be absorbed into an agency in charge of revenue or finance. The attorney general’s office could probably be attached to the governor’s office, or made an arm of the Justice Cabinet.

There’s precedent for reforming Kentucky’s statewide elections. Prior to the 1995 races, the state approved changes allowing officeholders to succeed themselves once, along with requiring candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run as a slate. Prior to that, the governor and lieutenant governor were elected separately. This led to the awkward situation of Republican Louie B. Nunn having a Democrat, Wendell Ford, as his lieutenant governor.

Even when the governor and lieutenant governor have been from the same party but separately elected, there’s been friction. Wallace Wilkinson and Brereton Jones didn’t particularly get along; neither did Jones and Paul Patton when Jones succeeded Wilkinson. And even electing the state’s top two officials as a slate doesn’t guarantee harmony. Ernie Fletcher and Steve Pence famously split over Fletcher’s pardoning of those targeted by Greg Stumbo’s partisan persecution and witch hunt. And Steve Beshear relegated Dan Mongiardo to persona non grata status as soon as they took office, then jettisoned Mongiardo from his ticket when “Dr. Dan” chose to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010. It was painfully obvious that Beshear used Mongiardo solely for geographical balance on his ticket because other eastern Kentuckians were on opposing slates.

There’s been discussion about changing this setup to allowing gubernatorial candidates to run independently in the primary election and selecting a running mate after the nomination is secured, much as presidential candidates do. This effort failed the last time it was brought up and at this time it’s not known if the idea will be resurrected in next year’s legislative session.

This leaves one final reform that should be instituted. Back in 1989, local officials were elected to a one-time-only five-year term. Now, their election coincides with the presidential midterm election for congressional seats. This eliminated an election cycle in Kentucky, saving state and local agencies 25 percent on their election costs. Now, we only have elections in three out of every four years. The same thing should be done on a statewide level. The next time Kentucky chooses a governor, he or she should be elected to a one-off five-year term and the state elections should be pushed back a year to coincide with the presidential election. Not only would this save money on the cost of administering elections, but it would likely increase turnout since there seems to be more interest in presidential elections than in statewide elections.

These are bold proposals, to be sure, but they would serve to improve public service and voter participation in Kentucky, and decrease costs as well. It’s time for the Bluegrass State to modernize its state government and the way our officials are chosen.

Crickets chirping? No, it’s the sound of interest in Kentucky’s governor’s race

Odd. Unusual. Weird. Quiet. Strange.

Those adjectives pretty much sum up the consensus of political analysts concerning next week’s gubernatorial election in Kentucky. In a state where some past races have provided Fourth-of-July-type fireworks for political junkies, this year’s contest seems to have resulted in a collective “yawn” from the Bluegrass State’s electorate.

Even some columnists who routinely comment on such things have sought out other subjects on which to opine, even as Election Day draws nearer.

Want evidence that it’s a different kind of election? Democrats are complaining that their candidate, Jack Conway, is spending too much time raising money and not enough time campaigning. And Republicans aren’t happy that their nominee, Matt Bevin, is concentrating on campaigning instead of raising money.

What’s causing this feeling? There’s a widespread perception that neither party is particularly happy with its candidate. Bevin’s story is well-known. He scored an upset victory over the favorite and preferred candidate of the party’s hierarchy, Jamie Comer, and the opponent who was considered to be Comer’s strongest challenger, Hal Heiner. When Comer and Heiner began discussing each other instead of the issues, Bevin slipped through the middle and claimed his surprising win.

Bevin’s not in favor with the state GOP’s leadership and establishment because of his primary challenge last year to U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. Some of McConnell’s surrogates have been indifferent or downright hostile to Bevin in their public pronouncements about the race. There’s also a theory floating around out there that the state party’s real priority is to take control of the state House of Representatives in next year’s elections, and having a Democrat as governor would be more conducive to that goal. There’s sentiment that having a Republican governor will be beneficial to Democratic House candidates, so it makes things easier to offer only tepid support to a GOP gubernatorial candidate who isn’t well-liked by the party’s movers and shakers.

The traditional primary election roles were flip-flopped this year. Democrats usually have dog-eat-dog gubernatorial primary races. While Republicans had a crowded field and a spirited race, Conway had an easy walk to the fall. He faced only token opposition in the primary, and neither his positions on the issues nor his bank account were challenged. A number of other prominent Democrats were rumored to be considering running, or were encouraged to get in the race, but none opted to run. Names like Lt. Gov. Crit Luallen, Auditor Adam Edelen, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, former Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, House Speaker Greg Stumbo, and others were floated, but in the end, none stepped forward to challenge Conway. That’s what makes the lukewarm interest in Conway’s candidacy even more puzzling. There were plenty of opportunities for other Democrats to seek the nomination, but they all passed.

No one’s really expressed a theory as to why this happened, but I have one. Shortly before his death this spring, before the primary, former U.S. Sen. and Kentucky Gov. Wendell Ford endorsed Conway. Ford was the elder statesman for Kentucky Democrats. I think it’s entirely possible that the other politicians held off on running out of deference and respect for Ford’s memory.

The biggest question about next Tuesday’s race is if independent Drew Curtis will have any impact on the race. There’s no chance that Curtis can win, but he could play spoiler, drawing votes from one of the two partisan candidates. If he hurts one of them, would Bevin or Conway suffer the most?

One thing’s certain. For the first time in modern history, Kentucky will have a governor who hails from Louisville. This has some of Kentucky’s rural interests concerned. There’s a frequently heard refrain that state government neglects Louisville – an incorrect view, in my opinion – and there’s some worry that the new administration will favor Jefferson County over the rest of the state. Since much of the legislative leadership hails from rural areas, that may not be as much of a factor as some want to believe.

Something else to consider is the possibility that voters are turned off by the negativity of some of the campaign commercials. A couple of the candidates and the groups that support them must not have anything positive to say about themselves. Most all of their ads are critical of their opponents instead of listing their own qualifications and ideas.

What news coverage there has been of the election has been very favorable to Conway. The press has been highly critical of Bevin, most recently when he got Medicaid and Medicare confused. That’s easily done; in fact, I do it frequently. But there’s been scant mention of Conway’s interference with the investigation of his brother on drug charges, or the recent revelation that his family has been involved in his sister’s messy divorce and the subsequent jailing of her husband.

Of the downticket races, the one that’s gotten the most attention is the attorney general’s race. Andy Beshear is running on his father’s name, and tapping into the massive pile of donor money that a sitting governor commands, yet still hasn’t pulled away from his young opponent, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Whitney Westerfield, in the polling. In fact, the most recent polls available as of this writing indicate that all of the statewide races are too close to call.

You might think the closeness of the races, coupled with the very real possibility that the Republicans could take a majority of the statewide offices for the first time in anyone’s memory, would result in a lot of attention and discussion. But that hasn’t been the case.  It’s possible that the early jockeying for position in next year’s presidential race has stolen some of the interest, but most of the pundits are attributing the quietness to what they perceive as flawed candidates.

Regardless, there are distinct contrasts between Matt Bevin and Jack Conway. They have very different backgrounds and vastly different visions of where they want to take the state. The issues facing Kentucky are too important to ignore. Our state faces a challenging time the next four years and beyond. If you want to make a difference and have a say in what happens, go vote on Nov. 3 for the candidate of your choice.

Just say “no” to open primaries

Over the past several months, I’ve seen an increasing number of calls for Kentucky to abandon its well-established system of selecting political party nominees in favor of a method that, in my opinion, would wreak havoc with the process.

While several other states have open primaries, in which anyone can vote in either party’s primary regardless of their voter registration preference, Kentucky uses a traditional closed primary. Only members of certain political party have a say in selecting that party’s nominees.

Most recently, John-Mark Hack penned a column in the Lexington Herald-Leader in which he had harsh words for both the Democrats and Republicans. In that column, he called for the establishment of open primaries in Kentucky.

Hack is a former Democrat who in recent years has been speaking out against casino gambling, which has been one of the primary policy recommendations of party leaders such as Gov. Steve Beshear. Although Hack’s been criticizing expanded gambling for years, he hasn’t really said if that’s the reason he left the Democratic Party.

(Full disclosure: I worked with Hack about 15 years ago when he was affiliated with the Governor’s Office for Agriculture Policy under the Paul Patton administration. That office was responsible for distributing the tobacco settlement funds. I worked for the former Revenue Cabinet at the time, and our agency played a primary role in that process, so I developed a working relationship with Hack, although our paths haven’t crossed since.)

I’ve never been a fan of the open primary process, mainly because I don’t like the idea of Democrats having a say in who the Republican nominees will be, or vice versa. Political parties should be free to choose their nominees without outside interference. There are just too many opportunities for mischief and mayhem.

In fact, that has happened a couple of times before, to both parties. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore was the presumed Democratic nominee. He wasn’t facing any serious challenges to his candidacy, and the GOP race was basically between George W. Bush and John McCain. It was well-known that the Democrats preferred to run against McCain. So, in certain open primary states, Democrats voted for McCain in the Republican primary in hopes of giving him the nomination.

Fast-forward to 2008, when it appeared that McCain had the Republican nomination wrapped up and Barack Obama was leading Hillary Clinton late in the race, Rush Limbaugh came up with his “Operation Chaos” to prolong the Democrats’ race. He was urging Republicans to vote for Hillary in the hopes that it would prolong the primary race.

Taking the open primary concept one step farther, remember that next year, Kentucky Republicans will caucus to choose their presidential nominee. Should Democrats be allowed to participate in the Republican caucus?

One reason offered for open primaries is that some feel closed primaries disenfranchise independents and those registered in other parties. This isn’t the case at all. An independent is on the ballot in Kentucky’s gubernatorial race this year. And there will probably be several third-party candidates running for president next year. Independents and third-party voters will have plenty of opportunities to cast a ballot – just not in a partisan primary. Parties should be allowed to select their own nominees without the influence of outsiders.

People may decry the two-party system that has developed in American politics – and I’m a bit critical of it myself, seeing that the leadership of the party to which I belong is so far removed from its grassroots that I tend to refer to myself by ideology rather than by party registration – but independents and third-party voters still have a great say in who wins elections, and those candidates sometimes emerge victorious. In fact, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent, although he’s running in the Democrat presidential primary. Opening up partisan primaries to all voters won’t diminish the impact of the two-party system, but it will do serious damage to the integrity of the nomination process. It’s a bad idea elsewhere, it would be a bad idea in Kentucky, and hopefully state leaders will just say “no” to the concept.

A victory for the First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comer’s back, and so is his harshest critic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rumors and the role of the press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rand gets his GOPaulcus – so what’s next?

(Note: This was written and published in some Kentucky newspapers before Rand Paul made his payment to the Republican Party of Kentucky to move forward with the presidential caucus next year.)

It was a close call, but U.S. Sen. Rand Paul convinced Kentucky’s Republican leadership to approve the party’s change from a primary election to a caucus – which I’ve dubbed the GOPaulcus – to select the state’s choice for a presidential nominee in 2016.

Despite an endorsement from the state’s top Republican dog, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the vote wasn’t a done deal. In fact, the decision was jeopardized the week prior to the party vote when news broke that Paul had been less than forthcoming when he said he’d already given the party a significant sum of money to be used to pay for the GOPaulcus.

The decision required a three-fourths vote of the party’s leaders, and the GOPaulcus was approved by the slimmest of percentages, and then only after a provision was inserted into the proposal that requires Paul to pay the up-front share of the costs by a certain date, or the party will revert to a primary election.

This move ostensibly allows Paul to compete for both the presidential nomination and re-election to the Senate, bypassing a state law that allows a candidate to run for only one office at a time. Since the presidential delegate competition won’t be on the ballot with the Senate primary, it’s a legal move. But is it practical?

When Paul first raised the idea of the GOPaulcus, he said he thought he had about a one in six (17 percent) chance of winning the presidential nomination. Lately, though, his stock has tanked, and he recently lowered his self-estimated odds of winning to one in 10. His popularity seems to have peaked, and it’s not likely to rise again to the level it was when he was one of just a few announced candidates. As the field has become more crowded, his support has waned.

The likelihood is that by the time the March GOPaulcus rolls around, Paul will either be a total non-factor in the race or he will have withdrawn from it. As the establishment wing of the party firms up its support of Jeb Bush; as the popularity of anti-establishment candidates such as Ted Cruz and Scott Walker continues to rise; and if the Donald Trump phenomenon doesn’t flame out, it’s probable that Paul will be out of contention. And there’s no guarantee that he can engineer a revival in his adopted home state of Kentucky. A number of Bluegrass Republicans don’t support him, and his insistence of being able to run for re-election to the Senate as a safety net has alienated more than a few since Kentucky law doesn’t allow that the way other states do. Delegates are to be apportioned proportionally according to the results of the GOPaulcus, and it won’t be a winner-take-all contest. Even if Paul wins by a narrow margin, he’ll still have to share delegates with his nearest competitors.

There’s a growing sentiment that Paul should abandon his presidential bid and concentrate on being re-elected to the Senate. That would be a far less difficult path for him. Kentucky will likely vote overwhelmingly for the Republican nominee, whomever it ends up being. Hillary Clinton doesn’t enjoy the Arkansas folksy manner her husband did in 1992 and 1996. Bernie Sanders will find little audience for his extreme views in the Bluegrass State. So it looks like the Republican candidate will have long coattails, and Paul should be able to take advantage of them – unless he gets careless and his presidential ambitions divert his focus from the Senate re-election campaign.

I questioned the particulars of the GOPaulcus process from the beginning. It currently appears as if there will only be a six-hour window for voting, as opposed to the 12 hours polls are open in an election. Most rural counties will have only one GOPaulcus location, as opposed to several voting precincts countywide. These factors will likely prove to be a deterrent to participation. The prediction here is that after this one-time experiment to appease Paul and legally circumvent the candidacy restrictions, the state GOP executive committee will be more than happy to return to a primary election to choose a presidential nominee for 2020 and beyond.

Parties are free to choose their nominees for office in pretty much any manner they choose. This one time, at least, Kentucky Republicans have chosen to do what some other states do and use a caucus. So, it was funny to hear Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes criticizing the decision. Since she’s a Democrat, it’s really none of her business how Republicans select candidates. And while I tend to agree with some of her statements, her opinions are irrelevant. A friend floated the theory that she’s unhappy that the Republican presidential candidates will be paying their filing fees to the state party rather than to her office, since the secretary of state’s office has nothing to do with a party caucus.

But as I said before, it’s all a moot point. Rand Paul is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee. There won’t be any controversies about him possibly being on the November general election ballot for both president and senator. It’s just not going to happen.

Political correctness hinders full, robust debate on controversial issues

Several weeks ago, a couple of events spawned a firestorm of debate and discussion.

A racially-motivated church shooting in South Carolina, coupled with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the redefinition of marriage, fueled some passionate discourse on those two very varied matters.

The back-and-forth got so heated that friendships, real-life and online, were ended.

More than one person was seen to remark that their social media feeds made it appear as if the Civil War had broken out in a Skittles factory, so many graphics of Confederate battle flags and rainbows were posted.

While robust discussion of history and current events is always a good thing, some folks involved in those parallel debates went into them with a very one-sided view. Many of them feel that if you oppose the redefinition of marriage, you’re a bigot or a homophobe (one of the most-misused words in the English language today), and if you support the display of the Rebel flag or don’t want Jefferson Davis’ statue removed from the Kentucky Capitol, you’re a racist.

Any surprise that those opinions are mostly held by people on the left side of the political aisle? Does anyone else shake their head at the irony that the people who preach tolerance and acceptance are some of the most intolerant and unaccepting people in the world?

Here’s a news flash. Not everyone who opposes the redefinition of marriage hates homosexuals. Some have very valid religious reasons for their beliefs. Others think the court decision changing the definition of marriage nationally and taking the ability to define who can get married away from the states is flawed.

People who display the Rebel flag aren’t necessarily endorsing racism. Some use that image as a symbol of a rural, southern lifestyle. They aren’t advocating a return to the days when blacks were slaved.  They see it as a representation of fast cars, loud trucks, camping, hunting, fishing, cold beer, “Dukes of Hazzard” and country music.

But in today’s politically correct society, it doesn’t matter the intent of the expression. What matters is how it’s perceived. And if some group takes offense at something, then by all means it must be changed or eliminated.

The assumption that people who oppose the redefinition of marriage hate homosexuals, or that people who fly Rebel flags are racist, has stifled an honest discussion of the issues. Many are afraid to make their true feelings known on these and other subjects, lest they be branded with unflattering and untrue descriptions and suffer repercussions for their opinions. Telling the truth has somehow become less important than making sure no one is offended.

For years, persons who came to America without going through proper channels were called “illegal aliens.” That is a perfect term to describe them and their status. Yet that term has somehow become offensive, with the politically correct crowd preferring the terms “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker.” That has led to a number of jokes, one of the most popular being that we can’t call a drug dealer by that term anymore; we have to call them “unlicensed pharmacists.” Another controversy broke out last week over the use of the term “anchor baby” to describe children born to illegal aliens – excuse me, undocumented immigrants.

My humorous observation is that I’m surprised there hasn’t been a movement to get the British rock group Genesis to change the name of its early 1980s hit song “Illegal Alien” to something more PC.

But there’s nothing humorous about how the concept of political correctness keeps us from having a serious discussion of the issues. One of the reasons Donald Trump has found popularity as a presidential candidate is because of his bluntness.  During the recent Republican presidential debate in Cleveland, Trump addressed the subject. "I think the big problem this country has -- is being politically correct," Trump "And I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either."

People don’t want to be described in ways that aren’t necessarily true. Who wants to be branded a racist or a homophobe just because you disagree with current popular opinion? It’s gotten to the point that if you counter the phrase “black lives matter” with the statement, “all lives matter,” you’re politically incorrect. Some politicians have even apologized after being criticized for saying “all lives matter,” proving that it’s often easier to cave to the prevailing sentiment than to stand up for truth.

We have to get past this notion that no one should be offended if we are going to have a frank, open and honest dialogue on important issues. Until we do, we can’t expect things to get better.