For several years, the cover photo on my personal Facebook page has been a banner stating, "I Don't Believe The Liberal Media!" It's a replica of a bumper sticker distributed by the watchdog Media Research Center (and I really need to find my copy of it and put it on my vehicle.)
Those who know me know my background. My college degrees are in journalism/communications. I spent 14 years in the newspaper field, most of that time in editorial positions. When I got out of college, and for several years thereafter, my career goal was to write for the Lexington Herald-Leader. It's a goal I'm glad I've never attained, given the leftward leanings of that publication. Imagine my disappointment when I found out that the reporter I most looked up, someone I had gotten to know when I was in college and with whom I had several professional dealings after I went into the profession, to turned out to be another stereotypical liberal journalist.
I've been out of the journalism field for 15 years now, but still keep a keen eye on my former occupation. It's gotten to the point where I'm ashamed of my education and my background.
Another thing those who know me know is that I did not support Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential race. I supported Ted Cruz, and was not a fan of Trump's primary campaign. But it was impossible not to notice the bias with which the national press covered Trump's campaign. It was plain for me, a Trump opponent, to see that the media was against him and was trying every way possible to bring him down. It got to the point where in my house, we couldn't watch the CBS Evening News anymore between the local news and "Wheel of Fortune."
The coverage of Trump's presidency has been an embarrassment. He's right to attack CNN, NBC, and the leading newspapers as "fake news." They aren't interested in facts. They want to torpedo his administration.
If you need proof, look at the way Trump's criticisms of various Congressional Democrats has been branded. Stories about Trump's tweets usually state they are "racist" or "inherently racist" as if it's the gospel. Truth is, it's a lie and a fabrication. Trump has never mentioned race at all when he's gone after Elijah Cummings and Baltimore, or any of the four freshman females known collectively as "The Squad." He's mentioned policies and ideologies and unpleasant truths about the areas some of them represent, but he's never touched on race. Only a media looking for a way to criticize him sees racism in his comments and actions.
That's why the revelations last week about the infamous New York Times staff meeting come as no surprise. Distill that to its essence, and you get this: "We tried, and failed, to get Trump on this Russian collusion stuff. So now, we're going to try to get him as a racist, and we're going to brand his supporters as racist, as well." I've read the transcript of the leaked staff meeting. Those who dispute that's the gist of what was said are being willfully ignorant.
And that's not to mention their "1619 Project," which is an attempt to sell the absurd idea that America is an inherently racist nation, the real founding of this country occurred not in 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but years earlier when the first slaves were brought to our shores, and that everything America is now was built by involuntary servitude.
I have yet to read Mark Levin's best-selling book, Unfreedom of the Press, but I plan to. Like all of Levin's books, it's a well-researched and unassailable history of the biases the press has shown in recent years. The New York Times' overlooking the Holocaust is a particular subject of concern, and it became even more relevant last week when the anti-Semitic comments of a NYT editor, Tom Wright-Piersanti, were made public.
Several years ago, something called "the Journolist" made news. It was an email group run by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, and it further exposed key journalists as doctrinaire liberals.
Then, as now as the latest scandals erupt and little is said, except for liberal journalists and those they support circling the wagons. Arthur Schwartz, a Trump supporter who helped expose Wright-Piersanti, has come under fire for his disclosure that he and others have compiled a list of compromising statements journalists have made, and will make them public. Unlike the fake Russian dossier which began the investigation of Trump, these are 100 percent true and made up of the journalists' own words.
Or to state it differently, only liberal journalists have First Amendment rights. When someone else exercises them, they're engaging in blackmail and extortion.
Need any more examples of the media being tone-deaf and unaware? Look no farther than the new hire the Courier-Journal breathlessly announced last week, Joe Sonka. If the C-J needed any more reinforcement for the view that its coverage is biased to the left, this provides it in spades.
If Schwartz and his group of opposition researchers want a Kentucky trophy to hang on their wall, then Sonka gives them a rich history. For years, Sonka ran the "Barefoot and Progressive" blog in Lexington. There, his liberalism and atheism was on full display. He raged against Gov. Ernie Fletcher, President George W. Bush, Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning, and anyone else of the Republican persuasion.
He left that blog, and Lexington, to go to work for the Louisville Eccentric Observer, otherwise known as LEO Weekly, but left in a snit with the publication's owner, Aaron Yarmuth (son of a certain congressman). From there, he went to Insider Louisville, which recently shut down. At those publications, he couldn't keep his viewpoint separated from his "reporting." He lucked out and scored a job at the C-J.
There, he'll fit right in with Joe Gerth. Gerth puts his anti-conservative bias on full display every time he writes a column. Given the views he freely expresses in his opinion pieces, it's easy to see why his news stories read the way they do.
I'd also say that he'll fit right in with Tom Loftus, but he won't for long. Loftus, who seems to think Gov. Matt Bevin's purchase of a house in Jefferson County is the biggest news story ever in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, announced his upcoming retirement last week. Maybe Sonka's hiring was too over-the-top for even Loftus to stomach.
When Trump tweeted over the weekend that "the media is destroying the free press," he took the usual heaping of abuse from the left. Those of us who have watched the press destroy its own credibility for years knew exactly what he was talking about.
Monday, August 26, 2019
Friday, August 23, 2019
More from the "tolerant left" as they celebrate David Koch's death
Not too long ago, I noted how many on the left were celebrating medical issues being suffered by Kentucky's two Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul.
Now, the tolerance on the left is again on full display as news has come out of the death of prominent businessman and political activist David Koch.
Koch and his brother, Charles, comprise the Koch Brothers that you hear so much about, mostly in derisive and derogatory terms from liberals. They ran their family's private Kansas-based company.
Koch was 79 and had been in declining health, resulting in him stepping away from much of his business and political activity in recent years. He was a Libertarian Party candidate for vice president in 1980 ,who later became more conservative in his views, before swinging back to the libertarian outlook in later years.
I generally support their ideas for lower taxes and smaller government, but in recent years the Kochs have taken a more libertarian bent in their activism that's a bit off-putting to this tea party conservative. Their advocacy for more lax immigration standards is one significant place where I'm in disagreement with them. Ditto their foreign policy views regarding America's use of force to engage our enemies before they engage us. And the social/moral/cultural stances David Koch took are 100 percent opposite from what conservatives believe. He supported drug legalization, abortion, and gay marriage. Even those positions, held in reverence by the left, weren't enough to mitigate the hate so many had for him.
But by and large, their work has been good for the country and good for conservative causes. Their championing of free market principles is in line with our founding fathers, but is anathema to the left's vision for our society.
So it was no surprise to see the cyber celebrations break out in the comments sections of news stories announcing David Koch's death. Had I bet everything I owned on the probability of that happening, I'd have doubled my money.
On the comments section of WYMT-TV's Facebook post about his death alone, liberals were rejoicing. Snarky comments, GIFs of celebratory dances, and the typical lies about what he stood for populated the feed.
And Twitter? There's a reason Rush Limbaugh refers to it as a cesspool. Koch's death was a trending topic, and virtually none of the tweets were mournful in nature.
Here's a little message for some of those on the left: Don't lecture us on the right about tolerance and civility when you don't practice those traits yourself.
Now, the tolerance on the left is again on full display as news has come out of the death of prominent businessman and political activist David Koch.
Koch and his brother, Charles, comprise the Koch Brothers that you hear so much about, mostly in derisive and derogatory terms from liberals. They ran their family's private Kansas-based company.
Koch was 79 and had been in declining health, resulting in him stepping away from much of his business and political activity in recent years. He was a Libertarian Party candidate for vice president in 1980 ,who later became more conservative in his views, before swinging back to the libertarian outlook in later years.
I generally support their ideas for lower taxes and smaller government, but in recent years the Kochs have taken a more libertarian bent in their activism that's a bit off-putting to this tea party conservative. Their advocacy for more lax immigration standards is one significant place where I'm in disagreement with them. Ditto their foreign policy views regarding America's use of force to engage our enemies before they engage us. And the social/moral/cultural stances David Koch took are 100 percent opposite from what conservatives believe. He supported drug legalization, abortion, and gay marriage. Even those positions, held in reverence by the left, weren't enough to mitigate the hate so many had for him.
But by and large, their work has been good for the country and good for conservative causes. Their championing of free market principles is in line with our founding fathers, but is anathema to the left's vision for our society.
So it was no surprise to see the cyber celebrations break out in the comments sections of news stories announcing David Koch's death. Had I bet everything I owned on the probability of that happening, I'd have doubled my money.
On the comments section of WYMT-TV's Facebook post about his death alone, liberals were rejoicing. Snarky comments, GIFs of celebratory dances, and the typical lies about what he stood for populated the feed.
And Twitter? There's a reason Rush Limbaugh refers to it as a cesspool. Koch's death was a trending topic, and virtually none of the tweets were mournful in nature.
Here's a little message for some of those on the left: Don't lecture us on the right about tolerance and civility when you don't practice those traits yourself.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Amy McGrath's tightrope
When even friendly sources refer to your campaign's launch as "bumpy," "rough," and "rocky," you may have some issues.
Such is illustrative of the challenges Amy McGrath is going to face as she seeks to become the Democrat nominee for the United States Senate seat currently held by Mitch McConnell.
McGrath is going to have to walk a tightrope as she campaigns for the nomination. Does she run to the left to garner the support of and donations from the radical liberals on the national scene who are dominating the party's current direction? Or does she try to stay closer to the center to appeal to mainstream Kentucky Democrats who remain party members, but are increasingly feeling left behind by the national party's lurch to the left?
McGrath became a darling of national Democrats when she moved back to Kentucky after finishing her military career and challenged U.S. Rep. Andy Barr for Congress. But even in a "blue wave" election in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district, she couldn't unseat Barr.
She hung her campaign on her military service, which she probably thought would appeal to conservative "blue dog" Democrats, but voters saw through that when they heard excerpts of various comments she made about her beliefs, most of which were made at out-of-state fundraising events. She pronounced her support for abortion on demand and single-payer healthcare, her opposition to border security, and even famously declared herself to be farther left than just about anyone else in Kentucky.
Even the ads highlighting her service record turned wearisome. Her "89 combat missions" line became the butt of jokes and ridicule. She became a caricature and ended up losing an election many thought she'd win.
But Democrats love recycling, and she became the target of many seeking to recruit her to run for the right to challenge McConnell. (Yes, I know that McConnell has opposition in the Republican primary, and I will be supporting challenger Wesley Morgan, but it's a safe bet that McConnell will be renominated and will be on the ballot next fall).
Although she's the biggest name among the Democrats who have currently filed to run, it's not a foregone conclusion she'll be the nominee. No one is pining for Ashley Judd to move back to Kentucky to run, as she contemplated doing six years ago, but two well-known opponents may be waiting in the wings. Rocky Adkins, currently the Kentucky House of Representatives minority leader; and Matt Jones, a media personality best-known for his University of Kentucky-themed radio show and Web site; are said to be considering the race or are being encouraged to run.
Both Adkins and Jones would be formidable opponents for McGrath. Name recognition is one advantage for both of them. Despite all the national fawning over her, McGrath isn't all that well known outside the Lexington television market -- and mentioning her name in the 5th District often brings negative comments from those who couldn't vote for her and were sick of her omnipresent "89 combat missions" television ads.
Adkins is fresh off a second-place showing in the statewide gubernatorial primary, and many still feel like Democrats wasted their best chance for unseating Gov. Matt Bevin by nominating Andy Beshear instead. And Jones has long used the popularity of his sports broadcasting endeavor to pimp his political ambitions.
Of those three -- Adkins, Jones, and McGrath -- it's probably safe to say that Adkins has the best shot at ousting McConnell. The national money is going to come flowing in to whomever is running, and Adkins' rural background will resonate better with disaffected Democrats who still hold an advantage in voter registration numbers than will McGrath's uber-liberal views. Jones is banking on his radio popularity to work to his advantage should he run, but many people are lined up with stories about unpleasant personal interactions with him.
But if McGrath does end up with the nomination, she's never been up against anything like the McConnell political machine. Late in her congressional campaign, some legitimate questions arose about her service record. Barr's campaign didn't make an issue of it, but Barr's campaign is not McConnell's campaign. It might be time for me to copyright or trademark the term and hashtag #BackSeatPilot, I'm just saying.
After that bumpy start to her campaign, McGrath seems to have taken the advice everyone's giving Joe Biden, and has apparently gone into hiding. She did manage to make it to Harlan County to pander to the Blackjewel miners protesting their lack of a paycheck -- and kudos to her GPS for getting her to a place she'd probably never heard of before -- but no one's heard a peep out of her since then. Her campaign manger did make the news, however, for being blamed for Jones being booted from his "Hey Kentucky" Lexington television show.
McGrath's campaign is going to face challenges that no other possible candidates will. She's in a precarious position, having to decide whether to heed her liberal national backers and funders, or run a campaign that will appeal to the voters who will actually decide the contest. Is she up to the task?
Such is illustrative of the challenges Amy McGrath is going to face as she seeks to become the Democrat nominee for the United States Senate seat currently held by Mitch McConnell.
McGrath is going to have to walk a tightrope as she campaigns for the nomination. Does she run to the left to garner the support of and donations from the radical liberals on the national scene who are dominating the party's current direction? Or does she try to stay closer to the center to appeal to mainstream Kentucky Democrats who remain party members, but are increasingly feeling left behind by the national party's lurch to the left?
McGrath became a darling of national Democrats when she moved back to Kentucky after finishing her military career and challenged U.S. Rep. Andy Barr for Congress. But even in a "blue wave" election in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district, she couldn't unseat Barr.
She hung her campaign on her military service, which she probably thought would appeal to conservative "blue dog" Democrats, but voters saw through that when they heard excerpts of various comments she made about her beliefs, most of which were made at out-of-state fundraising events. She pronounced her support for abortion on demand and single-payer healthcare, her opposition to border security, and even famously declared herself to be farther left than just about anyone else in Kentucky.
Even the ads highlighting her service record turned wearisome. Her "89 combat missions" line became the butt of jokes and ridicule. She became a caricature and ended up losing an election many thought she'd win.
But Democrats love recycling, and she became the target of many seeking to recruit her to run for the right to challenge McConnell. (Yes, I know that McConnell has opposition in the Republican primary, and I will be supporting challenger Wesley Morgan, but it's a safe bet that McConnell will be renominated and will be on the ballot next fall).
Although she's the biggest name among the Democrats who have currently filed to run, it's not a foregone conclusion she'll be the nominee. No one is pining for Ashley Judd to move back to Kentucky to run, as she contemplated doing six years ago, but two well-known opponents may be waiting in the wings. Rocky Adkins, currently the Kentucky House of Representatives minority leader; and Matt Jones, a media personality best-known for his University of Kentucky-themed radio show and Web site; are said to be considering the race or are being encouraged to run.
Both Adkins and Jones would be formidable opponents for McGrath. Name recognition is one advantage for both of them. Despite all the national fawning over her, McGrath isn't all that well known outside the Lexington television market -- and mentioning her name in the 5th District often brings negative comments from those who couldn't vote for her and were sick of her omnipresent "89 combat missions" television ads.
Adkins is fresh off a second-place showing in the statewide gubernatorial primary, and many still feel like Democrats wasted their best chance for unseating Gov. Matt Bevin by nominating Andy Beshear instead. And Jones has long used the popularity of his sports broadcasting endeavor to pimp his political ambitions.
Of those three -- Adkins, Jones, and McGrath -- it's probably safe to say that Adkins has the best shot at ousting McConnell. The national money is going to come flowing in to whomever is running, and Adkins' rural background will resonate better with disaffected Democrats who still hold an advantage in voter registration numbers than will McGrath's uber-liberal views. Jones is banking on his radio popularity to work to his advantage should he run, but many people are lined up with stories about unpleasant personal interactions with him.
But if McGrath does end up with the nomination, she's never been up against anything like the McConnell political machine. Late in her congressional campaign, some legitimate questions arose about her service record. Barr's campaign didn't make an issue of it, but Barr's campaign is not McConnell's campaign. It might be time for me to copyright or trademark the term and hashtag #BackSeatPilot, I'm just saying.
After that bumpy start to her campaign, McGrath seems to have taken the advice everyone's giving Joe Biden, and has apparently gone into hiding. She did manage to make it to Harlan County to pander to the Blackjewel miners protesting their lack of a paycheck -- and kudos to her GPS for getting her to a place she'd probably never heard of before -- but no one's heard a peep out of her since then. Her campaign manger did make the news, however, for being blamed for Jones being booted from his "Hey Kentucky" Lexington television show.
McGrath's campaign is going to face challenges that no other possible candidates will. She's in a precarious position, having to decide whether to heed her liberal national backers and funders, or run a campaign that will appeal to the voters who will actually decide the contest. Is she up to the task?
Friday, August 16, 2019
Conservative voices being suppressed? There may be something to that theory (Or, I need a part-time job...)
Seems like you can't go more than a few days about seeing another report of a conservative voice being silenced in the social media or Internet realm. From banning of right-of-center personalities to allegations that search engines are skewing results to favor left-leaning viewpoints, it appears to be a real issue.
I may have some anecdotal evidence of my own to contribute to the argument.
Personally, I make no secret of the fact that I'm underpaid and need to make more money to keep up with increased costs of living. I've had hopes of syndicating this column in order to bring in some additional revenue, but never had any luck in doing so. And I haven't found many ways to monetize the blog, either. When I revived writing this viewpoint a couple of months ago, I saw an option to join the Google AdSense program, which would place ads on the blog and pay me a nominal sum. Hey, every little bit helps. So I went through the motions to join AdSense, but so far have had nothing but rejections.
The first one mentioned "suspicious activity." I have no clue what that was all about. The Blogger platform will let you see how many views each post has, but there weren't a whole lot on any of my posts, and I could find no way to determine IP addresses or origin points for those who did take a look.
The last couple of rejections stated "no content." Huh? This blog has just as much content as any other Blogger blog with AdSense ads. Most everything is relevant commentary on issues. There's no profanity, no over-the-top statements, no promotion of anything wacky.
The only conclusion I can draw is that it's content-based. Google simply does not want to place ads on a conservative outlet, and it doesn't want to pay money to someone who doesn't toe the liberal philosophical line.
We'll see if they change their minds. In the meantime, if anyone has any leads on any part-time positions for which I'd be suited, give me a shout. I'm especially looking for opportunities to do writing, editing, and maybe a little political consulting. I readily admit that I'm not suited for sales or anything else that requires extensive interaction with the public. And I'm really not in good enough shape to do anything physically demanding. I'd much prefer to use the only talent I have, which is wordsmithing.
I may have some anecdotal evidence of my own to contribute to the argument.
Personally, I make no secret of the fact that I'm underpaid and need to make more money to keep up with increased costs of living. I've had hopes of syndicating this column in order to bring in some additional revenue, but never had any luck in doing so. And I haven't found many ways to monetize the blog, either. When I revived writing this viewpoint a couple of months ago, I saw an option to join the Google AdSense program, which would place ads on the blog and pay me a nominal sum. Hey, every little bit helps. So I went through the motions to join AdSense, but so far have had nothing but rejections.
The first one mentioned "suspicious activity." I have no clue what that was all about. The Blogger platform will let you see how many views each post has, but there weren't a whole lot on any of my posts, and I could find no way to determine IP addresses or origin points for those who did take a look.
The last couple of rejections stated "no content." Huh? This blog has just as much content as any other Blogger blog with AdSense ads. Most everything is relevant commentary on issues. There's no profanity, no over-the-top statements, no promotion of anything wacky.
The only conclusion I can draw is that it's content-based. Google simply does not want to place ads on a conservative outlet, and it doesn't want to pay money to someone who doesn't toe the liberal philosophical line.
We'll see if they change their minds. In the meantime, if anyone has any leads on any part-time positions for which I'd be suited, give me a shout. I'm especially looking for opportunities to do writing, editing, and maybe a little political consulting. I readily admit that I'm not suited for sales or anything else that requires extensive interaction with the public. And I'm really not in good enough shape to do anything physically demanding. I'd much prefer to use the only talent I have, which is wordsmithing.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
McConnell vs. Stumbo, 15 years too late
There's little doubt that Sen. Mitch McConnell, the titular head of the Republican Party in Kentucky, has his fingerprints all over the 2019 primary for statewide offices.
Forget the claims that he forced Gov. Matt Bevin to ditch Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton from the ticket and replace her with state Sen. Ralph Alvarado. McConnell's real influence can be seen in two downticket races.
Back in 2015, two underfunded GOP candidates with little name recognition came heartbreakingly close to defeating two Democrats from dynastic families in Kentucky politics. State Sen. Whitney Westerfield nearly knocked off Andy Beshear for attorney general, and Steven Knipper just missed out on defeating Alison Lundergan Grimes for secretary of state.
Based on those two strong showings, Westerfield and Knipper should have been considered the front-runners for this year's races. But that wasn't to be. McConnell had other ideas.
In the secretary of state's race, the chosen candidate was Michael Adams. Knipper filed to run again, as did two other candidates, but Adams got the backing of the McConnell machine and ended up winning.
But it's the attorney general's race that is the subject of this examination. Westerfield had filed to run again, but then McConnell protege Daniel Cameron started making noise about getting into the race. Mysteriously, Westerfield's fund-raising began to dry up, and he ended up withdrawing from the ballot. Fellow Senate member Wil Schroeder stepped in, but once again, McConnell's hand-picked candidate won the primary.
This fall, Cameron is facing Greg Stumbo. The former state representative, speaker of the House, and one-term attorney general is seeking to get back on the public payroll after losing his House seat in 2016 in one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. Stumbo's sordid past is well-known, despite his attempts to claim Cameron is lying about his exploits. Fathering a child out of wedlock, failing to pay child support, counter-suing the mother when she finally did seek the arrearage, the disappearing DUI charge, abusing his power as attorney general for political reasons, pushing his hand-picked successor out of the way to get back in the House, leading a coup against Jody Richards to become House speaker, his bizarre speech about "an Arkansas traveler" after the 2015 election -- all this is in the public domain and should not be new news to any Bluegrass political observer.
But the question here is why Mitch McConnell has waited so long to put Greg Stumbo in his sights. The view from here is that he's about 15 years too late in doing so.
Back in 2003, another McConnell-mentored candidate became the first Republican to be elected governor in Kentucky in 32 years. Ernie Fletcher was a congressman who had served as a state representative. As a doctor, veteran, and lay minister, he brought an impressive resume to the table. He won the Republican primary against two strong opponents in large part because of McConnell's support. Then in the general election, he beat Ben Chandler, the grandson of A.B. "Happy" Chandler, who's generally regarded as the best retail politician in Kentucky history.
Unfortunately for Fletcher, Stumbo was elected attorney general. Stumbo's politically-motivated and misguided investigation into merit system hiring practices during Fletcher's administration really doesn't need rehashing here, other than to say that what Fletcher's team was accused of was exactly the opposite of what they were doing. They were trying to reverse years of illegal political influence in hiring for state civil service jobs.
But while Stumbo chipped away at Fletcher's reputation, McConnell remained strangely silent. Perhaps that's because McConnell had placed the biggest troublemaker in his position within the Transportation Cabinet. (Keep in mind that since Republicans had not been in power in Frankfort in more than three decades, the pool of political appointees wasn't very deep. As a result, Republican members of Kentucky's federal delegation -- McConnell, Hal Rogers, etc. -- chose many of those in the non-merit positions that a governor can hire into leadership. It was a McConnell acolyte that caused many of the problems upon which Stumbo pounced; but the truth remains that no state merit employee with status was ever fired for political reasons during Fletcher's term).
As the outrageous statements from Stumbo and his henchmen piled up, McConnell said nothing. Even when asked, he declined to criticize Stumbo or defend Fletcher. He basically hung his governor out to dry.
The most frustrating thing about this was that it was widely known that a vote fraud case that had ensnared state Sen. Johnny Ray Turner was circling around Stumbo. Indeed, his campaign treasurer had told federal investigators that Stumbo had engaged in the same activity that had gotten Turner indicted. Yet that went nowhere.
This was McConnell's trump card; his ace in the hole; that he never played. He had the means to bring Stumbo's investigation screeching to a halt, but he didn't. All he needed to to was to pick up the phone and call the attorney general, "Either you put an end to this foolishness, or my next calls are to the FBI and to President Bush and to tell them to proceed full-speed ahead into expanding that vote-buying investigation."
In the end, Stumbo's evil deeds cost Fletcher his re-election. The Steve Beshear years were a disaster for Kentucky, and now Beshear's son Andy is trying to move up from attorney general to be governor. And Stumbo is trying to succeed Andy Beshear and regain his old seat. There's little doubt that as attorney general, Stumbo would do to Gov. Matt Bevin what he did to Fletcher, or what Baby Beshear has done these past four years.
Any efforts to take Stumbo out are appreciated. And there's no reason not to think that Cameron wouldn't be an excellent attorney general. But I can't help but think, with a great deal of regret, that McConnell should have been this interested in stopping Stumbo and supporting his protege 15 years ago as he seems to be now.
Forget the claims that he forced Gov. Matt Bevin to ditch Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton from the ticket and replace her with state Sen. Ralph Alvarado. McConnell's real influence can be seen in two downticket races.
Back in 2015, two underfunded GOP candidates with little name recognition came heartbreakingly close to defeating two Democrats from dynastic families in Kentucky politics. State Sen. Whitney Westerfield nearly knocked off Andy Beshear for attorney general, and Steven Knipper just missed out on defeating Alison Lundergan Grimes for secretary of state.
Based on those two strong showings, Westerfield and Knipper should have been considered the front-runners for this year's races. But that wasn't to be. McConnell had other ideas.
In the secretary of state's race, the chosen candidate was Michael Adams. Knipper filed to run again, as did two other candidates, but Adams got the backing of the McConnell machine and ended up winning.
But it's the attorney general's race that is the subject of this examination. Westerfield had filed to run again, but then McConnell protege Daniel Cameron started making noise about getting into the race. Mysteriously, Westerfield's fund-raising began to dry up, and he ended up withdrawing from the ballot. Fellow Senate member Wil Schroeder stepped in, but once again, McConnell's hand-picked candidate won the primary.
This fall, Cameron is facing Greg Stumbo. The former state representative, speaker of the House, and one-term attorney general is seeking to get back on the public payroll after losing his House seat in 2016 in one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. Stumbo's sordid past is well-known, despite his attempts to claim Cameron is lying about his exploits. Fathering a child out of wedlock, failing to pay child support, counter-suing the mother when she finally did seek the arrearage, the disappearing DUI charge, abusing his power as attorney general for political reasons, pushing his hand-picked successor out of the way to get back in the House, leading a coup against Jody Richards to become House speaker, his bizarre speech about "an Arkansas traveler" after the 2015 election -- all this is in the public domain and should not be new news to any Bluegrass political observer.
But the question here is why Mitch McConnell has waited so long to put Greg Stumbo in his sights. The view from here is that he's about 15 years too late in doing so.
Back in 2003, another McConnell-mentored candidate became the first Republican to be elected governor in Kentucky in 32 years. Ernie Fletcher was a congressman who had served as a state representative. As a doctor, veteran, and lay minister, he brought an impressive resume to the table. He won the Republican primary against two strong opponents in large part because of McConnell's support. Then in the general election, he beat Ben Chandler, the grandson of A.B. "Happy" Chandler, who's generally regarded as the best retail politician in Kentucky history.
Unfortunately for Fletcher, Stumbo was elected attorney general. Stumbo's politically-motivated and misguided investigation into merit system hiring practices during Fletcher's administration really doesn't need rehashing here, other than to say that what Fletcher's team was accused of was exactly the opposite of what they were doing. They were trying to reverse years of illegal political influence in hiring for state civil service jobs.
But while Stumbo chipped away at Fletcher's reputation, McConnell remained strangely silent. Perhaps that's because McConnell had placed the biggest troublemaker in his position within the Transportation Cabinet. (Keep in mind that since Republicans had not been in power in Frankfort in more than three decades, the pool of political appointees wasn't very deep. As a result, Republican members of Kentucky's federal delegation -- McConnell, Hal Rogers, etc. -- chose many of those in the non-merit positions that a governor can hire into leadership. It was a McConnell acolyte that caused many of the problems upon which Stumbo pounced; but the truth remains that no state merit employee with status was ever fired for political reasons during Fletcher's term).
As the outrageous statements from Stumbo and his henchmen piled up, McConnell said nothing. Even when asked, he declined to criticize Stumbo or defend Fletcher. He basically hung his governor out to dry.
The most frustrating thing about this was that it was widely known that a vote fraud case that had ensnared state Sen. Johnny Ray Turner was circling around Stumbo. Indeed, his campaign treasurer had told federal investigators that Stumbo had engaged in the same activity that had gotten Turner indicted. Yet that went nowhere.
This was McConnell's trump card; his ace in the hole; that he never played. He had the means to bring Stumbo's investigation screeching to a halt, but he didn't. All he needed to to was to pick up the phone and call the attorney general, "Either you put an end to this foolishness, or my next calls are to the FBI and to President Bush and to tell them to proceed full-speed ahead into expanding that vote-buying investigation."
In the end, Stumbo's evil deeds cost Fletcher his re-election. The Steve Beshear years were a disaster for Kentucky, and now Beshear's son Andy is trying to move up from attorney general to be governor. And Stumbo is trying to succeed Andy Beshear and regain his old seat. There's little doubt that as attorney general, Stumbo would do to Gov. Matt Bevin what he did to Fletcher, or what Baby Beshear has done these past four years.
Any efforts to take Stumbo out are appreciated. And there's no reason not to think that Cameron wouldn't be an excellent attorney general. But I can't help but think, with a great deal of regret, that McConnell should have been this interested in stopping Stumbo and supporting his protege 15 years ago as he seems to be now.
Monday, August 5, 2019
McConnell, Paul injuries expose the so-called "tolerant left"
We hear all the time about how tolerant and compassionate liberals are, and how intolerant they think conservatives are. Liberals tell us that we should respect everyone and their religious views, their political views, their sexual preferences, their national cultures, and everything else about others. We're to revel in our diversity and celebrate our differences.
The truth is that the left has never really been tolerant of those who think differently than they do. Nor are they particularly compassionate.
For proof, look no farther than the comments sections of news stories that reported on the health problems of Kentucky's senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, over the weekend.
On Sunday morning, McConnell fell at his Louisville home and broke his shoulder. Then on Monday, Paul underwent surgery to remove a part of his lung; a procedure made necessary due to the lingering health problems resulting from his being assaulted by his Bowling Green neighbor several months ago.
The amount of vitriol and pure hatred expressed by many of the liberal commenters isn't really surprising. The tolerant, compassionate left has no tolerance nor compassion for those who view government and society differently.
Truth be told, I'm not a fan of either McConnell or Paul. I don't agree with McConnell's establishment-favoring views, and I also don't align with Paul's beliefs on many public policy positions. But I'd never wish ill health upon them.
Imagine if something like this happened to Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or any other prominent liberal. And imagine if conservatives started celebrating and wishing even more health issues. ("Hope he develops sepsis," one particularly compassionate commented about McConnell's injury.) The left's outrage would be boiling over.
The truth is, it's wrong when either side does it. But it's especially hypocritical when it comes from the side that proclaims itself the guardian of tolerance and compassion. It's why I reject the term "progressive" as a descriptor for liberals and leftists. You don't make progress when you want to stifle debate and discussion, and wish harm upon your opponents.
I enjoy trolling liberals on social media more than I probably should, but I don't even attempt to call out this shameful behavior for what it is. If those who celebrate the injuries to Kentucky's two senators can't see the wrong in doing so for themselves, it would be futile for anyone else to try to point out their disgusting behavior. Some people are beyond shame, and they've proved it this week.
The truth is that the left has never really been tolerant of those who think differently than they do. Nor are they particularly compassionate.
For proof, look no farther than the comments sections of news stories that reported on the health problems of Kentucky's senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, over the weekend.
On Sunday morning, McConnell fell at his Louisville home and broke his shoulder. Then on Monday, Paul underwent surgery to remove a part of his lung; a procedure made necessary due to the lingering health problems resulting from his being assaulted by his Bowling Green neighbor several months ago.
The amount of vitriol and pure hatred expressed by many of the liberal commenters isn't really surprising. The tolerant, compassionate left has no tolerance nor compassion for those who view government and society differently.
Truth be told, I'm not a fan of either McConnell or Paul. I don't agree with McConnell's establishment-favoring views, and I also don't align with Paul's beliefs on many public policy positions. But I'd never wish ill health upon them.
Imagine if something like this happened to Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or any other prominent liberal. And imagine if conservatives started celebrating and wishing even more health issues. ("Hope he develops sepsis," one particularly compassionate commented about McConnell's injury.) The left's outrage would be boiling over.
The truth is, it's wrong when either side does it. But it's especially hypocritical when it comes from the side that proclaims itself the guardian of tolerance and compassion. It's why I reject the term "progressive" as a descriptor for liberals and leftists. You don't make progress when you want to stifle debate and discussion, and wish harm upon your opponents.
I enjoy trolling liberals on social media more than I probably should, but I don't even attempt to call out this shameful behavior for what it is. If those who celebrate the injuries to Kentucky's two senators can't see the wrong in doing so for themselves, it would be futile for anyone else to try to point out their disgusting behavior. Some people are beyond shame, and they've proved it this week.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Three prominent people's deaths of note
I'm not usually one to get all woeful and reminiscent when a celebrity or other prominent person dies. Even if I was a fan of their work or their career, I realize that they are humans just like all the rest of us, and we're all going to die at some point.
But three deaths over the last couple of weeks got me to thinking about just how some people impact our lives without us ever meeting them. I'll discuss them in reverse order of their deaths, starting with the most recent.
Jim Bouton. Bouton achieved fame as a baseball player with the New York Yankees in 1961 and 1962, the year of my birth and the year afterwards. He was known for his blazing fastball. But arm problems derailed his young career, and he was picked up in the expansion draft by the Seattle Pilots for the 1969 season, and then traded to the Houston Astros later that year.
Bouton's chronicle of that season, along with memoirs from his glory days with the Yankees, became one of the most influential sports memoirs, Ball Four.
I came across a copy of that paperback book sometime during my early teen years. I think I found it at my grandmother's house. I don't know who it had belonged to, but I read it. Back then, I was still young enough to snicker every time I heard a swear word in a movie or on TV. Ball Four had me snickering nonstop, especially at the swearing of Pilots manager Joe Schultz. Schultz, Bouton recounted, had a habit of combining the s-word and the f-word into a single word, alternating the beginning word of his manufactured compound curse. "F---s---" and "s---f---" were said to be Schultz's two favorite epithets.
But it wasn't Bouton's recounting of his manager's cussing that was controversial. He noted that Yankees superstar Mickey Mantle sometimes took the field hung over, and commented on the use of speed by many players. The baseball commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, declared that he'd done the game a disservice, and he was shunned by many in the game after the book came out.
As I got older, and read and re-read Ball Four, I began to understand more of the context and adult themes the book discussed. I was a die-hard Cincinnati Reds fan, so I appreciated the insight into the world of Major League Baseball in the years before the Big Red Machine captivated the world.
I wore that paperback version out, and several years later when an updated version with a new chapter came out, I picked it up and turned it into a dog-eared collection of pages as well.
Even today, I can still remember some passages from Ball Four and had just recalled something from it the day before Bouton died. I'm not a MLB fan anymore -- the 1994 strike ended my fandom -- but the book still remains an important sports tome.
H. Ross Perot. Perot's claim to fame was not his status as a rich businessman, but for his two independent runs for the presidency.
Most people get all sentimental when someone dies, and I read many eulogies praising Perot after the news broke. But I don't look upon him with favor. I will always regard him as the man who caused Bill Clinton to be elected president.
Perot's entry into the 1992 race, in my view, siphoned votes away from incumbent President George H. W. Bush and allowed Clinton to with with a plurality of the electorate. Instead of going through the party system, Perot challenged Bush as an independent. It's been widely thought that voters who weren't totally satisfied with Bush, but wouldn't have voted for Clinton, went with Perot.
Had Clinton not won, we'd also never have been plagued with his wife. Hillary Clinton would have never been in the political conversation had not she been married to a charismatic president.
Perot tried again in 1996, but was basically a non-factor in that race when Clinton defeated Bob Dole.
In retrospect, perhaps Perot was Donald Trump 24 years too early, but at least Trump worked the system and didn't buck it. Both Perot and Trump decried various trade pacts -- Perot famously described NAFTA as causing a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving America for Mexico -- and it turns out that Perot donated to Trump's re-election campaign shortly before his death.
At any rate, it's hard for me to mourn Perot's passing. I remember hearing him described as "a gratuitous interloper" in the 1992 presidential race, and I can't help but wonder what might have happened had he stayed out of that contest.
Jared Lorenzen. This one probably hit me hardest of the three mentioned here, even though I'd never met him. As a lifelong University of Kentucky fan, I was very familiar with Lorenzen's life and career.
A two-sport star from northern Kentucky, who could have played college basketball had he so chosen, Lorenzen came to UK on a football scholarship as a quarterback despite being built more like a lineman. The guy was big. Being a big fellow myself, I could identify with him. Many years prior, when I was a sportswriter, I'd written a column about my sports heroes wearing size XXL uniforms. I specifically noted Charles Barkley and William "Refrigerator" Perry. Had Lorenzen been on the scene then, he'd have gotten a prime mention.
Despite his size, Lorenzen became a record-setting quarterback for the Wildcats. He bridged the gap between the fools-gold Hal Mumme era and the rebuilding efforts of Rich Brooks, which were the bookends of a couple of seasons when Guy Morriss served as interim coach before bolting for what appeared to be greener pastures at Baylor in light of the Mumme-caused NCAA sanctions against the UK football program.
And despite all odds, Lorenzen became an NFL quarterback, serving as Eli Manning's backup on a Super Bowl team.
His size gave him a number of nicknames. "The Round Mound of Touchdown" was a play on Barkley's "Round Mound of Rebound" monicker. "Pillsbury Throwboy" was another common nickname, as was "Hefty Lefty."
After Lorenzen left the NFL, his weight began to increase, and he undertook a very public journey to chronicle his efforts to drop the excess poundage. He even made a football comeback, playing in an arena league until a broken leg sidelined him for good.
His uncanny and unexpected athletic ability notwithstanding, I probably admired him for from afar for his business acumen. The dude was a creative and marketing genius. He founded a sports apparel company, Throwboy Tees, that centered on Kentucky- and UK-centric sports themes. Not a moment passed in the Kentucky sports world that Lorenzen didn't immediately rush to market with a T-shirt. Last year, when then-UK basketball player Tyler Herro uttered his famous "I'm a bucket" line during a tight ballgame, there was a shirt on the Web site the next day. When the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville of its 2013 basketball championship, Throwboy Tees sold a shirt with a replica of a championship banner with a big red "X" through it and an image of a dead cardinal. My favorite, though, and the only shirt I ever actually bought, came out during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. "Make Kentucky Great Again, Build A Wall," it said, depicting the state of Kentucky with a box drawn around the city of Louisville.
Lorenzen died much too young at 38, succumbing to what no doubt were complications from his weight issues. He was eulogized as much for his huge heart, bigger-than-life personality, and his impact on so many people across Kentucky and the football world as he was his on-field accomplishments. Even former Louisville rivals contributed to pay for his funeral. His T-shirt company is donating all proceeds from sales this month to his family (he was divorced with two young children).
RIP Jared Lorenzen, a man whose unlikely athletic accomplishments thrilled a state, and to me, a man whose creative streak was something I envied.
But three deaths over the last couple of weeks got me to thinking about just how some people impact our lives without us ever meeting them. I'll discuss them in reverse order of their deaths, starting with the most recent.
Jim Bouton. Bouton achieved fame as a baseball player with the New York Yankees in 1961 and 1962, the year of my birth and the year afterwards. He was known for his blazing fastball. But arm problems derailed his young career, and he was picked up in the expansion draft by the Seattle Pilots for the 1969 season, and then traded to the Houston Astros later that year.
Bouton's chronicle of that season, along with memoirs from his glory days with the Yankees, became one of the most influential sports memoirs, Ball Four.
I came across a copy of that paperback book sometime during my early teen years. I think I found it at my grandmother's house. I don't know who it had belonged to, but I read it. Back then, I was still young enough to snicker every time I heard a swear word in a movie or on TV. Ball Four had me snickering nonstop, especially at the swearing of Pilots manager Joe Schultz. Schultz, Bouton recounted, had a habit of combining the s-word and the f-word into a single word, alternating the beginning word of his manufactured compound curse. "F---s---" and "s---f---" were said to be Schultz's two favorite epithets.
But it wasn't Bouton's recounting of his manager's cussing that was controversial. He noted that Yankees superstar Mickey Mantle sometimes took the field hung over, and commented on the use of speed by many players. The baseball commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, declared that he'd done the game a disservice, and he was shunned by many in the game after the book came out.
As I got older, and read and re-read Ball Four, I began to understand more of the context and adult themes the book discussed. I was a die-hard Cincinnati Reds fan, so I appreciated the insight into the world of Major League Baseball in the years before the Big Red Machine captivated the world.
I wore that paperback version out, and several years later when an updated version with a new chapter came out, I picked it up and turned it into a dog-eared collection of pages as well.
Even today, I can still remember some passages from Ball Four and had just recalled something from it the day before Bouton died. I'm not a MLB fan anymore -- the 1994 strike ended my fandom -- but the book still remains an important sports tome.
H. Ross Perot. Perot's claim to fame was not his status as a rich businessman, but for his two independent runs for the presidency.
Most people get all sentimental when someone dies, and I read many eulogies praising Perot after the news broke. But I don't look upon him with favor. I will always regard him as the man who caused Bill Clinton to be elected president.
Perot's entry into the 1992 race, in my view, siphoned votes away from incumbent President George H. W. Bush and allowed Clinton to with with a plurality of the electorate. Instead of going through the party system, Perot challenged Bush as an independent. It's been widely thought that voters who weren't totally satisfied with Bush, but wouldn't have voted for Clinton, went with Perot.
Had Clinton not won, we'd also never have been plagued with his wife. Hillary Clinton would have never been in the political conversation had not she been married to a charismatic president.
Perot tried again in 1996, but was basically a non-factor in that race when Clinton defeated Bob Dole.
In retrospect, perhaps Perot was Donald Trump 24 years too early, but at least Trump worked the system and didn't buck it. Both Perot and Trump decried various trade pacts -- Perot famously described NAFTA as causing a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving America for Mexico -- and it turns out that Perot donated to Trump's re-election campaign shortly before his death.
At any rate, it's hard for me to mourn Perot's passing. I remember hearing him described as "a gratuitous interloper" in the 1992 presidential race, and I can't help but wonder what might have happened had he stayed out of that contest.
Jared Lorenzen. This one probably hit me hardest of the three mentioned here, even though I'd never met him. As a lifelong University of Kentucky fan, I was very familiar with Lorenzen's life and career.
A two-sport star from northern Kentucky, who could have played college basketball had he so chosen, Lorenzen came to UK on a football scholarship as a quarterback despite being built more like a lineman. The guy was big. Being a big fellow myself, I could identify with him. Many years prior, when I was a sportswriter, I'd written a column about my sports heroes wearing size XXL uniforms. I specifically noted Charles Barkley and William "Refrigerator" Perry. Had Lorenzen been on the scene then, he'd have gotten a prime mention.
Despite his size, Lorenzen became a record-setting quarterback for the Wildcats. He bridged the gap between the fools-gold Hal Mumme era and the rebuilding efforts of Rich Brooks, which were the bookends of a couple of seasons when Guy Morriss served as interim coach before bolting for what appeared to be greener pastures at Baylor in light of the Mumme-caused NCAA sanctions against the UK football program.
And despite all odds, Lorenzen became an NFL quarterback, serving as Eli Manning's backup on a Super Bowl team.
His size gave him a number of nicknames. "The Round Mound of Touchdown" was a play on Barkley's "Round Mound of Rebound" monicker. "Pillsbury Throwboy" was another common nickname, as was "Hefty Lefty."
After Lorenzen left the NFL, his weight began to increase, and he undertook a very public journey to chronicle his efforts to drop the excess poundage. He even made a football comeback, playing in an arena league until a broken leg sidelined him for good.
His uncanny and unexpected athletic ability notwithstanding, I probably admired him for from afar for his business acumen. The dude was a creative and marketing genius. He founded a sports apparel company, Throwboy Tees, that centered on Kentucky- and UK-centric sports themes. Not a moment passed in the Kentucky sports world that Lorenzen didn't immediately rush to market with a T-shirt. Last year, when then-UK basketball player Tyler Herro uttered his famous "I'm a bucket" line during a tight ballgame, there was a shirt on the Web site the next day. When the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville of its 2013 basketball championship, Throwboy Tees sold a shirt with a replica of a championship banner with a big red "X" through it and an image of a dead cardinal. My favorite, though, and the only shirt I ever actually bought, came out during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. "Make Kentucky Great Again, Build A Wall," it said, depicting the state of Kentucky with a box drawn around the city of Louisville.
Lorenzen died much too young at 38, succumbing to what no doubt were complications from his weight issues. He was eulogized as much for his huge heart, bigger-than-life personality, and his impact on so many people across Kentucky and the football world as he was his on-field accomplishments. Even former Louisville rivals contributed to pay for his funeral. His T-shirt company is donating all proceeds from sales this month to his family (he was divorced with two young children).
RIP Jared Lorenzen, a man whose unlikely athletic accomplishments thrilled a state, and to me, a man whose creative streak was something I envied.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Kentucky press misses the boat on presidential candidate's Bluegrass connection
As a former journalist, I still maintain a keen interest in the profession. I spent too many years in the business to just walk away from caring about the reporting of the news.
As a conservative, I've seen just how poor of a job today's journalists do. The agenda is unmistakable. There's a definite bias in what's covered and how it's covered.
Not a day goes by that I don't look at some media report and think how much better I could do it, and how so many newspapers and broadcast outlets are failing their audiences.
That's why it came as no surprise when I found some low-hanging fruit that would be easy pickings for an enterprising Kentucky news outlet. If five minutes of my spare time could yield what could be an intriguing human interest story highlighting Kentucky's connection to the 2020 presidential race, then why isn't someone who gets paid to do such things all over the story?
Tulsi Gabbard is a U.S. representative from Hawaii who's one of the pretenders in the crowded clown car that is the Democratic field of presidential candidates. She's a native Samoan whose family moved to Hawaii when she was young.
The surname Gabbard certainly isn't a common Hawaiian or Samoan name, that's for certain. But it is a familiar name to many people in east-central Kentucky. There are quite a few Gabbards in the Lee-Owsley-Breathitt county area that's my home. A few months ago, one of my friends jokingly posted on Facebook something about her and possible Kentucky roots.
After the recent circus -- I mean, the recent presidential debate -- a couple of folks with whom I was taking a training class in Frankfort were discussing her. They were National Guard members and were commenting about her because she had been a guard member. At the same time, another friend noted on Facebook commented that she was probably the best-looking presidential candidate ever, and posted a link to her Wikipedia page.
So that got me to thinking. I clicked on that Wikipedia page and saw that her father's name is Mike Gabbard, and he serves as a Hawaii state senator. The information on that page indicates that he's a Samoa native and his father was named Benjamin Harrison Gabbard, Jr.
So, off to Google I went. A search for "Benjamin Harrison Gabbard" yielded some information on someone named Benjamin Harrison Gabbard, Sr., and that's where the local connection comes into play.
Tulsi Gabbard's great-grandfather was a native of Jackson County who went to American Samoa as a naval seaman. He married a Samoan woman and stayed there until his death in 1932. He's buried in Pago Pago, having been disinterred and reburied with Tulsi's grandfather after his death in 1986.
It seems to me that there's a great news story to be had here before Tulsi Gabbard joins Eric Swalwell's ranks and gives up her impossible task. Reporters could go to Jackson County and see if they can find anyone who knows Tulsi or Mike. They could interview her and inquire if she's ever been to her family's ancestral homeland of eastern Kentucky, or if she or her father are ever in contact with anyone there.
But so far, not a peep. I'm guessing that this is probably the first you've ever heard of her Kentucky connection. If I was still a reporter, I'd definitely pursue this story I learned about just by chasing my own curiosity and by executing a couple of Internet searches.
Unfortunately, our press is asleep at the wheel. A story right under their noses, and they don't see it. Is it any wonder that bloggers and other citizen journalists are as popular as they are? I've seen quite a few stories on political blogs that never saw the light of day in the mainstream media. For this former journalist, it's frustrating. I share many of my conservative brethren's concerns about the state of the Fourth Estate, but I realize how vital a free and fair press is to this country's well-being.
In the meantime, enjoy this scoop that you didn't read in the Herald-Leader, the Courier-Journal, or even the Jackson County Sun or Jackson County Times.
As a conservative, I've seen just how poor of a job today's journalists do. The agenda is unmistakable. There's a definite bias in what's covered and how it's covered.
Not a day goes by that I don't look at some media report and think how much better I could do it, and how so many newspapers and broadcast outlets are failing their audiences.
That's why it came as no surprise when I found some low-hanging fruit that would be easy pickings for an enterprising Kentucky news outlet. If five minutes of my spare time could yield what could be an intriguing human interest story highlighting Kentucky's connection to the 2020 presidential race, then why isn't someone who gets paid to do such things all over the story?
Tulsi Gabbard is a U.S. representative from Hawaii who's one of the pretenders in the crowded clown car that is the Democratic field of presidential candidates. She's a native Samoan whose family moved to Hawaii when she was young.
The surname Gabbard certainly isn't a common Hawaiian or Samoan name, that's for certain. But it is a familiar name to many people in east-central Kentucky. There are quite a few Gabbards in the Lee-Owsley-Breathitt county area that's my home. A few months ago, one of my friends jokingly posted on Facebook something about her and possible Kentucky roots.
After the recent circus -- I mean, the recent presidential debate -- a couple of folks with whom I was taking a training class in Frankfort were discussing her. They were National Guard members and were commenting about her because she had been a guard member. At the same time, another friend noted on Facebook commented that she was probably the best-looking presidential candidate ever, and posted a link to her Wikipedia page.
So that got me to thinking. I clicked on that Wikipedia page and saw that her father's name is Mike Gabbard, and he serves as a Hawaii state senator. The information on that page indicates that he's a Samoa native and his father was named Benjamin Harrison Gabbard, Jr.
So, off to Google I went. A search for "Benjamin Harrison Gabbard" yielded some information on someone named Benjamin Harrison Gabbard, Sr., and that's where the local connection comes into play.
Tulsi Gabbard's great-grandfather was a native of Jackson County who went to American Samoa as a naval seaman. He married a Samoan woman and stayed there until his death in 1932. He's buried in Pago Pago, having been disinterred and reburied with Tulsi's grandfather after his death in 1986.
It seems to me that there's a great news story to be had here before Tulsi Gabbard joins Eric Swalwell's ranks and gives up her impossible task. Reporters could go to Jackson County and see if they can find anyone who knows Tulsi or Mike. They could interview her and inquire if she's ever been to her family's ancestral homeland of eastern Kentucky, or if she or her father are ever in contact with anyone there.
But so far, not a peep. I'm guessing that this is probably the first you've ever heard of her Kentucky connection. If I was still a reporter, I'd definitely pursue this story I learned about just by chasing my own curiosity and by executing a couple of Internet searches.
Unfortunately, our press is asleep at the wheel. A story right under their noses, and they don't see it. Is it any wonder that bloggers and other citizen journalists are as popular as they are? I've seen quite a few stories on political blogs that never saw the light of day in the mainstream media. For this former journalist, it's frustrating. I share many of my conservative brethren's concerns about the state of the Fourth Estate, but I realize how vital a free and fair press is to this country's well-being.
In the meantime, enjoy this scoop that you didn't read in the Herald-Leader, the Courier-Journal, or even the Jackson County Sun or Jackson County Times.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Conway Hatch Act controversy proves DC's lack of common sense
Does it strike anyone else as asinine that a politically appointed White House staffer isn't supposed to make political comments?
Should a presidential adviser be forbidden from advocating for candidates and policies that bolster the president's ideas and initiatives?
If the recent controversy over Kellyanne Conway and the federal law known as the Hatch Act leaves you scratching your head in amazement, then congratulations. You are demonstrating a presence of common sense that is sorely lacking in the seat of American government.
Conway's official title is Counselor to the President. As such, she's often a surrogate for President Trump in public and media appearances. It defies all logic that such a high-level political appointee isn't supposed to make political statements. Yet it appears the Hatch Act does, indeed, call that a no-no.
Government employees at all levels are made to surrender a variety of constitutional rights when they go on the public payroll. Kentucky's state merit system law, KRS Chapter 18A, restricts many First Amendment rights of state workers. Yet Kentucky is wildly inconsistent in what certain public employees are allowed to do and not do. Public education employees are paid from the same pot of money as state workers, yet they have much more latitude in engaging in political activity. (But that's a subject for a future commentary.)
The federal Hatch Act was originally passed to ward of political favoritism in awarding of public works contracts back in the post-Depression days. Yet it's been expanded to ridiculous lengths. It now places federal restrictions on the ability of state and local employees to run for political office. And it muzzles politically appointed employees like Conway from speaking out on matters of politics that are intrinsically linked to the operation of their boss' office.
Conway and Trump are right to mock the recent recommendation that she be fired. It's beyond silly to think that a person in Conway's position, sent to speak on behalf of the president, should not be able to do exactly that.
There hasn't been a First Amendment challenge to the Hatch Act's restrictions on political speech or activity since 1973. And political speech was exactly what the First Amendment was enacted to guarantee and protect. Maybe Conway should file a challenge and relegate the more ridiculous provisions of the law to the scrap heap where they belong. It's good public policy to try to take politics out of projects. Telling political appointees that they can't discuss politics, not so much.
Should a presidential adviser be forbidden from advocating for candidates and policies that bolster the president's ideas and initiatives?
If the recent controversy over Kellyanne Conway and the federal law known as the Hatch Act leaves you scratching your head in amazement, then congratulations. You are demonstrating a presence of common sense that is sorely lacking in the seat of American government.
Conway's official title is Counselor to the President. As such, she's often a surrogate for President Trump in public and media appearances. It defies all logic that such a high-level political appointee isn't supposed to make political statements. Yet it appears the Hatch Act does, indeed, call that a no-no.
Government employees at all levels are made to surrender a variety of constitutional rights when they go on the public payroll. Kentucky's state merit system law, KRS Chapter 18A, restricts many First Amendment rights of state workers. Yet Kentucky is wildly inconsistent in what certain public employees are allowed to do and not do. Public education employees are paid from the same pot of money as state workers, yet they have much more latitude in engaging in political activity. (But that's a subject for a future commentary.)
The federal Hatch Act was originally passed to ward of political favoritism in awarding of public works contracts back in the post-Depression days. Yet it's been expanded to ridiculous lengths. It now places federal restrictions on the ability of state and local employees to run for political office. And it muzzles politically appointed employees like Conway from speaking out on matters of politics that are intrinsically linked to the operation of their boss' office.
Conway and Trump are right to mock the recent recommendation that she be fired. It's beyond silly to think that a person in Conway's position, sent to speak on behalf of the president, should not be able to do exactly that.
There hasn't been a First Amendment challenge to the Hatch Act's restrictions on political speech or activity since 1973. And political speech was exactly what the First Amendment was enacted to guarantee and protect. Maybe Conway should file a challenge and relegate the more ridiculous provisions of the law to the scrap heap where they belong. It's good public policy to try to take politics out of projects. Telling political appointees that they can't discuss politics, not so much.
Friday, June 14, 2019
Back from a hiatus
This blog has been inactive for awhile. There's been no real reason for the silence; it just happened. But there's been no shortage of news to discuss. On the local, state, and national level, things have been going on that warrant discussion. So, I'm reviving this blog.
One thing you'll notice that was absent from the previous incarnation of this endeavor is the presence of ads. I'm trying Google AdSense to try to earn some money from my punditry. And, as always, if any of my newspaper industry friends or acquaintances want to republish my commentary, please contact me to discuss terms. In the past, I provided this column to papers in my area free of charge, but I'm going to try the paid syndication route now to see if I have any success.
In the past, there was usually only one blog entry a week, after the column that I had submitted to the newspapers had been published. You'll probably see posts much more frequently now, as events warrant.
I tried to stick to state issues in previous posts, but you will probably see more local and national discussion as things move forward.
Please feel free to share posts on your personal social media accounts as you see fit. Commercial news outlets are expressly prohibited from sharing the content here unless they've set up a syndication agreement with me. Comments are encouraged; I may not respond to them all, but I'll read them. All I ask is that you keep your comments civil. Don't use foul language; don't engage in personal attacks on other commenters, subjects of the commentary here, or the author: and don't say anything that might be libelous. Run afoul of these guidelines, and your comment will be deleted.
Even if you don't agree with the viewpoints offered here, my hope is that they will enlighten you and encourage you to think. As you read these thoughts, keep in mind that they are offered by a person of faith, a person who believes in the power of the citizenry, and one who realizes that the government truly is of and by, and should be for, the people; one who thinks less government is better and people should be free to pursue their goals and dreams while guided by a generally accepted set of societal standards. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, and certainly not a fiscal or social liberal. And while I may disagree with some conservative ideas or Republican officeholders on occasion, my political and social beliefs are staunchly conservative.
One thing you'll notice that was absent from the previous incarnation of this endeavor is the presence of ads. I'm trying Google AdSense to try to earn some money from my punditry. And, as always, if any of my newspaper industry friends or acquaintances want to republish my commentary, please contact me to discuss terms. In the past, I provided this column to papers in my area free of charge, but I'm going to try the paid syndication route now to see if I have any success.
In the past, there was usually only one blog entry a week, after the column that I had submitted to the newspapers had been published. You'll probably see posts much more frequently now, as events warrant.
I tried to stick to state issues in previous posts, but you will probably see more local and national discussion as things move forward.
Please feel free to share posts on your personal social media accounts as you see fit. Commercial news outlets are expressly prohibited from sharing the content here unless they've set up a syndication agreement with me. Comments are encouraged; I may not respond to them all, but I'll read them. All I ask is that you keep your comments civil. Don't use foul language; don't engage in personal attacks on other commenters, subjects of the commentary here, or the author: and don't say anything that might be libelous. Run afoul of these guidelines, and your comment will be deleted.
Even if you don't agree with the viewpoints offered here, my hope is that they will enlighten you and encourage you to think. As you read these thoughts, keep in mind that they are offered by a person of faith, a person who believes in the power of the citizenry, and one who realizes that the government truly is of and by, and should be for, the people; one who thinks less government is better and people should be free to pursue their goals and dreams while guided by a generally accepted set of societal standards. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, and certainly not a fiscal or social liberal. And while I may disagree with some conservative ideas or Republican officeholders on occasion, my political and social beliefs are staunchly conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)