Too many people have forgotten for whom they work

Something happened during my tenure with the communications office in the agency formerly known as the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet that I have carried with me for two decades. Once simple event has proven to be instructive in a variety of situations. It may never be more applicable than it is today.

Shortly after I started working there, Paul Patton was elected governor. One of his initiatives was called EMPOWER Kentucky, which was an effort to streamline and modernize governmental services. In Revenue, that project took the form of an effort to consolidate all tax collection services into one interconnected computer network, and an endeavor to increase revenue collection by closing the gap between what was being paid and what was actually owed.

As is customary with such projects, the state hired outside consultants at inflated prices to work with the various state agencies involved in the process. I can't remember exactly which consultant was working with Revenue -- I tend to think it was Deloitte & Touche, but it may have been the Gartner Group -- but we were overrun with them as EMPOWER Kentucky got started.

Being the chief writer in the public information office, who was responsible for communicating the project to employees and the general public, I attended numerous meetings and briefings about what became known as the Integrated Tax System (ITS). It was during one of those meetings that my memorable moment happened.

One of the consultants was speaking in a small gathering in the cabinet secretary's conference room, and he kept telling us all the things that we in Revenue needed to do for the benefit of the consultants. Finally, someone had had enough. That someone was Margaret Handmaker, the Revenue secretary herself. She looked squarely at the consultant, and uttered these fateful words:

"Are we working for you, or are you working for us?"

Properly chastened, the consultant promptly piped down, and began listening to the ideas the Revenue employees in the room were presenting, rather than pushing his own proposals. The state had hired the consulting firm to do a job for us, but instead, it was treating the state as if we were all there to do what they told us.

The circumstances are a bit different, but the gist remains the same, when today's situation with the government is examined. A lot of people are forgetting for whom they work. Their job is to carry out management's directives, not oppose them from within.

I spent eight years working for a governor I despised, Steve Beshear. I also was no fan of my agency's management. Yet I didn't try to throw wrenches into the works. I expressed my disagreement when appropriate, or when honest feedback was sought, but at the end of the day, I did my job. I didn't substitute my judgment for that of my superiors.

We have a whole lot of people in the federal government who need to be reminded of that. It's no secret that much of the bureaucracy is liberal, and thus isn't inclined to support President Trump and his policies and initiatives. But those bureaucrats aren't entitled to sabotage policies, oppose proposals, fail to comply with directives, or work from within to undermine the administration's goals and objectives. What would public outcry have been if there had been so much resistance to President Obama's agenda from within the federal government?

Government employees are free to express their disapproval with what's being done. I spent eight years in state government doing just that. But in the end, I did my job, whether it was personally palatable to me or not.

Elected officials and politically-appointed managers usually listen to the thoughts and opinions of career employees, and most take those views under serious consideration when making decisions. But once those decisions are made, government workers have one job: Carrying out those directives.

You may hate Donald Trump and what he's trying to accomplish. You may disagree with what he says and what he does. God knows I did with Steve Beshear. And I don't agree with everything Matt Bevin does. But I did, and continue to do, my job. If you work for the federal government, you should too. Your job is not to oppose or resist the Trump administration. Your job is to do what the administration tells you to.

It's no longer possible to politely disagree in America

You can't go very long these days without hearing how polarized the country is.

I will freely admit my role in that. I'm a staunch, unwavering conservative. If I had my way, we'd never elect another liberal politician and we would repeal liberal policies. I'm outspoken in my beliefs, and one of my guilty pleasures is trolling liberals on social media. Truth be told, I probably enjoy that more than I should.

But having said that, I don't mind a good, honest, civil debate on the issues of the day. I think it's important to discuss what's going on. At the end of the day, I still believe my side has the best answers, but it's important to know what the other side thinks, and why.

We're getting to the point where that's not possible. Post a pro-Trump comment, and you're a Russian bot. Speak up in defense of Hillary, or Bernie, and you're a libtard. While some of that is in good fun, sometimes it crosses the line.

Since when did it become acceptable to try to get someone fired because you disagree with them?

Read the comments on social media posts of news stories, and sooner or later you'll see it. "I see you work for so-and-so. What if your boss knew what you think?"

Translated: "Nice job you have there. It's be a shame if something happened to it."

I'm not talking about racism here, nor threats against anyone's safety or welfare. Just the simple expression of an opinion with which someone else disagrees. The anger in our society is so palpable that there are actually people who think someone should lose their job because someone has an opinion that runs counter to their own.

Last time I checked, we all have the freedom to hold different political opinions, and the freedom to express them. And while I realize this is strictly not a First Amendment matter, the core principle of that doctrine is to encourage discussion and dissent. You shouldn't have to pay a price just because you believe in something that someone else doesn't.

I had something like this happen to me recently. Someone unhappy with my opinion on a subject in the news let me know they just might feel led to let my employers know I'd weighed in on something and they disagreed with it. The details are unimportant, but the gist of the matter is that someone was not happy when I noted some hypocrisy being expressed in public by a member of the media.

Why anyone feels that when someone else posts something related to a current event when they're sitting in the comfort of their living room on a Friday evening, it merits such a reaction, is beyond me. But that's where we are now.

Not too long ago, I saw a liberal post what I felt was an outrageous take on some issue. A conservative followed up with, "Maybe I should tell your employer what you posted." I quickly chided them, saying something like, "We're better than they are. That's how they operate. They're entitled to their opinion, too, but we're different than they are. We don't threaten people's jobs just because they disagree with us."

We may never heal the divisions within this country. In fact, if the liberals ever take power again, I hope conservatives will be louder and stronger than ever in their opposition. But we have to be able to agree without being disagreeable. No matter how much I may oppose your viewpoints, I won't try to get you fired for expressing them. You should show the same courtesy.

What happens when everyone hates you? Walmart may find out

For years, liberals have vilified Walmart. The Arkansas-based retailer's employment practices, its business practices, the quality of the merchandise it sells -- all have come under withering criticism from people who think the company should pay its employees more, sell its wares for higher prices so as not to undercut locally-owned businesses, and not import goods from China or other countries.

It's fair to say that many liberals hate Walmart. You'll frequently hear them proclaim they prefer Target over Walmart, or Costco over Sam's Club. Even though Sam Walton's empire is the quintessential American business success story, many see that as a bad thing.

Now, scores of conservatives have joined liberals as being boisterous critics of Walmart. "Wally World" has gradually been cutting back on the sales of firearms and ammunition in the face of leftist pressure in the wake of some well-publicized shootings. This past week, Walmart announced another cutback, and also said that it would ask customers not to openly carry weapons in its stores.

(You may have heard this practice referred to as "constitutional carry," given the Second Amendment's acknowledgement of the right to bear arms as one of the same God-given rights on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Anytime you hear the term "constitutional carry," what's really being described is the right to carry a weapon in full view, as opposed to carrying a concealed weapon, which is illegal or allowable only under permit in many states.)

So, after years of alienating liberals, Walmart has now angered and offended conservatives who are unhappy with yet another assault on their rights.

What happens now? This certainly isn't going to appease the "living wage" and "union yes" and "no self-checkouts" and "support your local retailer" crowds. They're not going to magically love Walmart all of a sudden and start flocking there to spend money. They'll still prefer Target or Meijer or some other store. Pandering to those folks on this matter is not going to earn Walmart any goodwill whatsoever. But in the meantime, constitutional conservatives are now turned off as well and are looking for other options.

One business that stepped up is Rural King, which offers many of the same products as does Walmart and is rapidly expanding from its Illinois base. After Walmart's announcement, Rural King came out with a statement saying they respect America's history of firearms usage and its constitutional rights.

Walmart's decision prompted a bizarre rant from Fox News' Tucker Carlson the other night. The conservative commentator rightly criticized Walmart's decision as pandering to the left, but then he launched an odd rant against the company that repeated some of the classic liberal anti-Walmart talking points.

If liberals have shown us anything, it's that nothing is ever good enough for them. Walmart could completely cave on every issue its critics raise, and people with that mindset still wouldn't shop there. Now, Walmart's managed to tick off folks on the other side. If they keep going, they may end up at the point where everyone hates them.

Just this past week, the final nail may have been pounded into Kmart's coffin. Another round of store closures was announced, including a couple of the last remaining stores in Kentucky. Kmart was never able to compete with Walmart once Walmart gained prominence. Kmart was more expensive, had a smaller selection of products, and its stores weren't appealing. Once a leading national general merchandise retailer, it wasn't able to keep up with the changing times. There might be a lesson there for Walmart. If they continue to tick off various segments of the populace, Kmart's present might be Walmart's future.

Interesting signals in Kentucky's Senate race

Kentucky hasn't even elected its statewide officeholders yet, and next year's U.S. Senate race is already getting attention.

Incumbent Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and a target of Democrats nationwide, hit the airwaves this week with an ad focused on Amy McGrath, the best-known of the Democrats who have announced their candidacy.

This signals two things.

One is that McConnell is not concerned about his primary challenger. former State Rep. Wesley Morgan. I'll be voting for and supporting Morgan over McConnell, but the safe bet is that the incumbent will win by a wide margin.

Second is that this move makes it fairly obvious that McConnell thinks McGrath will be the Democrats' nominee. Even with sports radio host Matt Jones announcing his formation of an exploratory committee this week, and with state House Minority Leader Rocky Adkins saying he'll delay a decision until after this fall's gubernatorial election despite being a hoped-for candidate by many in the state, it appears McConnell thinks he'll be up against McGrath next November.

Kentucky's Senate election will be in the national spotlight, as Democrats try to depose the majority leader. National groups from both parties will be spending lots of money here in an attempt to sway voters. Who knows, it might even put Kentucky back in the presidential election spotlight. It wouldn't be surprising for President Trump to hold a rally in Kentucky in support of McConnell, even with Kentucky's electoral votes pretty much guaranteed to go to Trump.

For those who grow weary of politics, it's going to be a long 15 months. Many are already cringing at seeing McGrath's ads on television, as they bring back horrible memories of her omnipresent commercials during her failed run for the House of Representatives last year.

But for now, it'll pay to keep an eye on McConnell's tactics and strategy. Will he broaden his aim to include Jones and possibly Adkins? Or will he keep the focus on McGrath?

Did the governed consent to this? Taxing bodies can challenge the assessed value of your property if they don't think it's high enough

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

This line from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, spells out exactly why this country was founded. Taxation and religious freedom were the two main reasons the colonists wanted to break free of British rule, and to establish a representative republic form of government instead of a top-down monarchy. The people choose their lawmakers and grant them certain authority, but they are to exercise only the authority given by the citizenry.

Taxes are a necessary evil resulting from that decision to establish a government. In theory, the people have chosen, through those elected representatives, to publicly fund certain programs and projects.

But did the people really ever expect that one arm of government could challenge a decision by another arm of government that could materially and financially affect them? That's exactly what happened in Grant County, where the school board has challenged the property valuation administrator's assessment of the worth of the Ark Encounter park and exhibit.

Forget for a moment the Ark Encounter's controversial nature. The gist of this story was lost on many who weighed in when the news came out earlier this week. Tax breaks granted by the state for the facility's construction have nothing to do with the controversy at hand.

In Kentucky, an elected county official called the property valuation administrator has the responsibility of assessing the value of all real property for taxation purposes. Kentucky property owners have always had the ability to challenge the assessed value of their property if they feel it's been set too high. Gov. Matt Bevin's challenge of the value of his Louisville home has been in the news. He followed the procedure spelled out in law when he felt the taxable value of his home was more than it was really worth on the open market.

But unbeknownst to me, and probably most everyone else, taxing agencies can challenge individual property assessments if they feel they're too low. That's what's happening in Grant County.

The PVA assessed the Ark Encounter's property at around $48 million in 2017. The school board there challenged the assessment to a local appeals board but lost, then also lost a challenge before a state board. Thus the lawsuit.

Nevermind that prior to the Ark Encounter's construction, the property was vacant woodland worth probably not more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars, if that much. A $48 million addition to the county's tax rolls means an increase in tax revenue to all local agencies that levy property taxes. News reports indicate that the school board received nearly $276,000 from the Ark Encounter in 2017. That's more than a quarter of a million dollars that they didn't get before the park was built. But it's apparently not enough.

While this appears to be nothing more than a blatant money grab from the Grant County school board, the implications of this are scary. What if someone has a confrontation with an official from an agency that has the power to levy taxes? Will they become a target? What if the agency decides its critic's home or business is assessed too low? Will they have to hire a lawyer and defend themselves in court?

It's a misconception that businesses pay taxes. Taxes are an expense that are either passed along to customers, or recouped through cuts in other places. If a prominent business owner finds their assessment increased through a taxing body's challenge, what if they increase prices or lay off employees to make up the difference? Doesn't that hurt, rather than help, the community at large?

Of course, Grant County is the same place where earlier this year, the high school refused to place an empty chair at graduation to honor the memory of a student who would have been graduating had she not died. So that gives you an idea of the mentality of school officials there.

What will probably come as a bigger shock to most, though, is that a PVA actually undervalued someone's property. In most cases, he exact opposite happens. Property is supposed to be valued for tax purposes as the amount that its sale would bring in a voluntary transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Most property owners wish they could sell their real estate for what the PVA says it's worth. I know that in three recent property sales, I wish I could have gotten the taxable value out of them.

Kentucky legislators need to take steps to prevent this type of thing from happening. If the PVA is undervaluing property, there are mechanisms in place to deal with that. The state took over management of a number of PVA offices back in the 1980s. But if a taxing body has an issue with a specific taxpayer, then this process opens up a whole lot of potential for abuse.

This specific issue is far from over. The suit was filed in Grant Circuit Court. No doubt, the losing party will appeal to the Court of Appeals, and a Supreme Court appeal is likely given the sum of money in question. No matter your opinion on the Ark Encounter, tax breaks for industrial development, or Christianity in general, this bears watching. The ability of a government taxing authority to single out an individual taxpayer is scary, and is something anyone who's concerned about an increasing government overreach and abuse of authority should be concerned about.

Media continues to destroy its own credibility

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.