"A name so easily forgettable," and a name you should remember

After I wrote my piece earlier this week about possible gubernatorial candidates in 2023, I saw an interview with state Rep. Robert Goforth, who ran against Gov. Matt Bevin in the Republican primary and lost.

My first thought was, "I forgot about him in my rundown of candidates," but then I realized that I hadn't given Goforth any thought at all. I flashed back to the comment Bevin had about him when asked about him months after the primary. "Who? It's a name that's easily forgettable."

And it's true. The likelihood is that Goforth will be a non-factor four years from now. In fact, it's likely that he won't even be in public service.

A popular rumor that circulated when Goforth first entered the GOP primary was that he was a plant by Rep. Jeff Hoover, the former speaker of the House who was basically forced out of his leadership position in a sexting scandal, and who has since decided to retire from his House seat. When the behavior of Hoover and others in the legislature became known, Bevin was very vocal in his calls for Hoover to step down. It didn't set well with the longtime legislator from Russell County and the first Republican House speaker in modern history.

Goforth outperformed Bevin in the Republican primary in the eastern, southeastern, and south-central counties of the current 5th District and the "old 5th" that is is home turf. While many found that alarming, it's easily understandable. People in this area tend to vote for their home-region candidates. Goforth's from Laurel County, and Bevin's from Louisville. And there's a distinct anti-Louisville bias in rural Kentucky. Any alarm that his performance against Bevin in the primary was a strong signal for the general election got shot down once the returns came in. Bevin beat or held his own against Andy Beshear in the Democrat-dominated counties of the area, and did as expected in the GOP counties. In fact, Bevin's largest percentage of victory came from Jackson County, one of the counties in Goforth's state House district.

Goforth got into politics upon the retirement for health reasons of Jackson County's Marie Rader. (Personal disclaimer: I know Marie Rader and consider her a friend). He's basically a first-term legislator who got the party's nomination for a special election in a safe GOP district, which ensured his election.

Outside of his gubernatorial run, some of his votes and statements have angered a number of conservatives to the point where it's said that he will have a credible challenger in next year's primary and will be lucky to be renominated.

So, instead of being a serious contender to run for governor in four years, it's more likely that he will be out of politics and looking back on his brief moment in the spotlight as a near-spoiler in the primary.

Goforth may be a name easily forgotten, but Stan Cave is a name I will always remember. I didn't include him in my analysis of possible gubernatorial candidates, but he is the first person I would line up for to support should he decide to run.

When it became apparent that Matt Bevin would not be re-elected governor, and thus as a result that Ralph Alvarado would not be the leading candidate to succeed him, I posted to Facebook, "Let me be the first to say, Stan Cave for Governor 2023!" He probably thought I was joking, but I was, and remain, serious.

I first met Stan back when he was serving as chief of staff for Gov. Ernie Fletcher, at a work event in Estill County. We knew of each other, due to mutual friends, but had never met in person. It was like running into a long-lost brother. He served in the General Assembly with Fletcher when he was a state representative, and is an attorney best known for his work with the Family Foundation. We've reconnected on social media and he's been a source of inspiration and advice.

I'm convinced he has the background and knowledge to be a great governor. He's right on the issues and is a genuinely good man. I've long thought he should get back into politics, as he has a servant's heart and is passionate about a number of issues. Chief among them is horse racing and the safety of the horses. Every time there's a racing accident and a horse is euthanized, he's angered. He thinks more could be done to regulate the sport and governments are turning a blind eye to what's going on. He's been as critical of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission under a Republican governor as he has been the Democrats.

Stan commented when I shared my piece on the 2023 contenders, sharing his own thoughts, and I told him I had left him out of the listing, but I still believe he'd be the best candidate the Republicans could field. I'm about ready to start the #DraftStanCave movement.

Stan Cave is the best of the best. I'll never forget his kindnesses to me. He'd make Kentucky a great governor. Maybe we can convince him to run.

State employees right to worry about Beshear 2.0

As a state employee, I've ridden out three gubernatorial transitions, and am getting ready for my fourth. None were what you would call friendly transfers of power.

My first one was from Democrat Brereton Jones to fellow Democrat Paul Patton in 1995. Even though Patton had served as lieutenant governor under Jones, back in the days when those two offices were elected separately, they weren't exactly buddies. While they didn't have the contentious relationship that Jones had experienced when he was Wallace Wilkinson's lieutenant governor, they had issues.

I was out of state government when Patton surrendered the governorship to Republican Ernie Fletcher, but was back in public service when Fletcher lost his re-election bid to Steve Beshear.

I was here when Beshear gave way to Republican Matt Bevin four years ago, and now here I am when Bevin will seemingly move aside for Democrat Andy Beshear.

Most state government merit employees don't see a tremendous change in their day-to-day duties when an administration turns over, but it's more uncomfortable for some than others. In my case, I report to a non-merit supervisor, so any gubernatorial change might mean a new boss for me. That's never a fun scenario, although all my bosses have been great to me over the years.

For whatever reason, the state government workforce has been a reliable constituency for Democrats. It's possibly because so many employees owe their jobs to the patronage system that the Democrats ran for years, yet have denied ever existed. They were convinced that the Fletcher administration was terrible for them and the Republicans who ran state government during that four-year term hated them. Many lies were told about Fletcher's treatment of merit system employees. No employees with status were fired; the only employee who was fired was on probation, and his management showed ample reasons for that decision.

In retrospect, the Fletcher administration was the last one that really showed that it valued the career employees who earn their living serving the state's taxpayers.

Certainly, the Steve Beshear years were awful. Employees dealt with no raises and then furloughs, which caused them to lose several days' pay each year. Even though minuscule raises were granted during Beshear's last two years in office, the reality is that any state employee who stayed in the same position during his eight years lost money out of their paychecks. Add to that his administration's inability to negotiate decent health insurance policies, and their embrace of Obamacare and the changes it required in the benefits offered to employees, and that resulted in an even greater monetary cost.

While it's true that the Bevin administration never granted across-the-board pay raises for all employees, there were a lot of adjustments made. Several job classifications were raised a grade -- for example, from Grade 13 to Grade 14 -- resulting in more pay. A number of other vital job classifications saw their salaries increased. A new midpoint schedule was implemented for purposes of recruiting new employees and retaining existing workers. New job classification series were established in some agencies to give employees a promotional path.

State law requires that employees receive a 5 percent pay raise each year (it's in KRS 18A.355) but increments of that level haven't been given since Patton's term. Raises under Fletcher's administration ranged in the 2-3 percent level, and Beshear never gave more than a 2 percent raise, but that didn't make up for the furloughs. And no across-the-board raises were given under Bevin. The budget authors always use the line, "notwithstanding the provisions of..." to get around the statutory language. There's a move afoot to repeal the 5 percent requirement and replace it with an annual cost-of-living raise, but that would still be subject to "notwithstanding" language when the state's budget is prepared.

The transition from Bevin back to another Beshear has many state employees, me included, worried. For the most part, public sector salaries are less than what folks in the private sector earn. The lack of raises has really hurt state workers, to the point that many leave for worse jobs that pay better. Snowplow drivers with their CDLs become over-the-road truckers to provide for their families. They're gone from home, but the money puts food on the table and the job provides insurance for the kids.

Memes have been floating around social media since Tuesday's election of a grinning Steve Beshear, sometimes with his wife in the photo, basically saying, "Look at those stupid people. We robbed their pensions blind, and they were dumb enough to elect my (our) son."

Steve and Andy Beshear may be father and son, but they're ideological twins. On issue after issue -- abortion, the Medicaid expansion that will end up busting the state budget, casino gambing, etc. -- there's not any difference in their views. So why should their attitudes toward public employees be any better?

Steve Beshear underfunded the pensions of public employees and teachers. Do those who voted for Andy, especially the teachers, really expect him to be any different? Why did they vote against someone who actually funded their pensions and tried to preserve them for the future, other than being upset about some blunt things he said?

Any state employee or teacher who voted for Andy Beshear is like a chicken voting for Harland Sanders, or a cow voting for Dave Thomas or Ronald McDonald.

Andy Beshear promised to give teachers a $2,000 raise, but where's that money going to come from? And what about state employees? Don't they deserve raises too?

Beshear 2.0 is setting up to be just like Beshear 1.0. The Fletcher administration left Steve Beshear a budget surplus, but Beshear immediately started poor-mouthing the financial situation upon taking office. He was never able to push casino gambling through as a new funding source, so he convinced legislative leaders they needed to furlough state employees to make up the shortfall. (Senate President David Williams later lamented supporting that move, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made; the Democrats who led the House never echoed a similar sentiment.)

Last month, the Bevin administration announced a surplus in the state's General Fund. Andy Beshear has also campaigned on bringing casino gambling to Kentucky, but has been told by Senate leaders that the proposal will go nowhere. Will he start complaining about a tight budget when he takes office and balance it on the backs of the state workers like his daddy did?

I've already let my social circle know that I'm on the job market. If I can find something that pays better in my area, I'll have no choice but to jump at the offer. I'm giving serious thought to retiring six years shy of qualifying for full benefits and taking a private-sector job at a reduced salary if it means more take-home pay when my pension is added to my paycheck. The election of Andy Beshear makes that thought look even more appealing.

Beshear 2.0 worries me. If you're a public employee concerned about your salary or pension, you should be worried too. And if you voted for him under those circumstances, you'll have to suffer the consequences. Be careful of what you wish for sometimes. You just may get it.

The process must be respected in review of gubernatorial election

Constitutional attorney, author, and radio and television host Mark Levin has a name for Republicans who seem to flee at the first sign of controversy or dispute with liberals and Democrats. He calls them "French Republicans."

Others, including former Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, refer to them as the "Surrender Caucus."

Now, it seems that this bunch is setting up a presence in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It's one reason that those of us who consider ourselves strong, principled conservatives get so frustrated with so many elected Republicans. They're too willing to concede or give in to the Democrats instead of standing strong.

With an extremely close contest between Gov. Matt Bevin and Andy Beshear, the governor is rightly looking into his options. First on the table is a recanvass, which he has requested, and which will occur next week. That's a simple process that takes place on a county-by-county basis. Vote totals are checked and the results are added again to ensure that no calculation mistakes were made. The margin of around 5,100 votes makes it unlikely that things will significantly change, but in an election where two votes per precinct made the difference, it's possible that a recording or mathematical error could alter the total. It's as possible that Beshear would pick up votes as it is Bevin would.

From there, it gets tricky. Kentucky law does not allow gubernatorial candidates to request a formal recount, as it does for local offices. A recount is a more involved process that includes examining voting machines to make sure they were working properly and recording votes as they were cast. The candidate who requests the recount is required to pay for it, and it involves a court process.

If Bevin thinks there is reason to move past a recanvass, he is required to contest the election with the General Assembly. This happened last year, when a legislative candidate lost by one vote and went through the procedure. The legislature forms a committee of randomly-selected members, eight from the House of Representatives and three from the Senate. The committee then hears testimony, reviews evidence, can order a formal recount, and makes a recommendation for the full legislature's decision.

Bevin has alluded to some improprieties in the election, but as of this writing, has offered no specifics. There's been anecdotal evidence, though, of problems. One precinct in Lexington didn't open until 6:30 a.m. because no one from the school system came to open the building. Some have reported that some paper ballot users were given ballots pre-marked for Beshear and other Democrats (one of the best arguments against using paper ballots that can be made). Others have mentioned other issues. It's been stated that in some Louisville precincts, neither Bevin nor Libertarian candidate John Hicks received a single vote; all of the ballots went to Beshear. And there's an infamous screenshot of a tweet, which is probably a fake based on the way the location is spelled "Louiville" instead of "Louisville," in which someone claims to have shredded a box of Bevin ballots.

That last is most likely a not-so-clever Photoshop job, but is there enough anecdotal evidence for Bevin to proceed with contesting the election? He said in his news conference that his team is in the process of gathering information and taking affidavits of those who have information about improprieties.

This is as it should be. There's a process in place, and we should all want fair and free elections where everyone's vote is recorded as cast and there is no fraud. But you wouldn't know it judging from the remarks of a number of Republicans, who seem willing to let a Democrat take office even if he earned that office improperly.

Even some legislators are saying that Bevin should give up the fight. Suppose he does, and then incontrovertible evidence of misdeeds comes to light after Beshear takes office and starts making changes? Would they be OK with that? When Senate President Robert Stivers pointed out how the process works, the national liberal media quickly started the "Republicans are going to steal the election" mantra.

Back in 1995, Paul Patton defeated Larry Forgy by a statewide margin of more than 21,000 votes. In that election, like this one just concluded, Jefferson County made the difference. Forgy alleged voter fraud, saying that the election was stolen from him in Louisville, and actually ended up with some indictments to prove his claims. Four people, including two high-level Patton aides, were charged. The indictments were later dismissed by a special judge, but reinstated by appellate courts. Patton ended up pardoning them, removing any possibility of determining for certain if he had won the election fairly, to quote then-Attorney General Ben Chandler. (There's a very interesting local angle to that story that might bear telling at some point in the future).

Bevin's margin of loss to Beshear is much less than Forgy's margin was against Patton. Although Forgy did not contest the election, the later criminal cases did call into question the election's integrity.

Does Bevin not deserve the right to know that he lost fairly and squarely? Does this state not deserve to know as well? Wouldn't Beshear want to know that his victory was genuine? Probably not, because his post-election comments were basically, "We won, you lost, it's over."

It's true that Bevin had a prickly relationship even with members of his own party in the General Assembly, but these people should be worried more about the integrity of the election than they are making peace and moving on. So many are worried about what a contested election will do to the state, and what might happen if the legislature ends up deciding that Bevin is the actual winner. They say that with GOP supermajorities in both houses, and Republicans in the major watchdog offices of attorney general and auditor, they can hold Beshear and his agenda in check. They should be more worried about the possibility of an improperly-elected governor running the state.

So, let the process move forward. It's there for a reason. Maybe things need to be changed to provide for a recount for gubernatorial races, like exists for local races. But the current setup is what they have to work with now. If Bevin is satisfied with the results after the recanvass, then fine. He's an honorable man. But if he finds something that convinces him that he needs to contest the election, then he has that right. It's our law. And members of both parties need to respect that. The "Surrender Caucus" needs to stand down, and the "French Republicans" need to go take a bath and put on some deodorant.

Looking ahead to 2023: Who are the Republicans' best options to take down Beshear?

The race for governor had not even been officially declared for Andy Beshear on Tuesday night, and one political pundit on Kentucky Educational Television's election-night coverage was declaring re-elected Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles as the front-runner for the 2023 Republican nomination.

It's a logical name to throw out there, but is it the logical name?

The same week as the election may seem to be too early to start discussing who the Republicans should choose to take on Beshear in four years, but the reality is that the GOP needs to start thinking about this race now and begin working on its plan to unseat the new governor.

Much like the University of Kentucky's 2014-15 basketball season, the roster is loaded. (In all honesty, this year's slate was loaded as well, but Beshear played the role of Wisconsin.) All the statewide officers elected on Tuesday won by decisive margins, some against candidates with high name recognition and years of service, so it's a deep bench. Three of the officeholders will be term-limited and won't be able to seek re-election (the aforementioned Quarles, Auditor Mike Harmon, and Treasurer Allison Ball.) They'll possibly be looking to step up. Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams will be in their first terms, and may choose to seek re-election than a move up at that point in their political careers.

All would definitely be formidable opponents for an incumbent Beshear. The three existing officeholders have done great jobs in their current positions. Ball led the ticket for the Republicans and has rejuvenated the duties of what is really a minor office. Harmon has done a methodical job as auditor, conducting himself in a bipartisan, impartial fashion. And Quarles has worked to modernize the state's agriculture industry, still a major economic engine, and is moving forward as hemp becomes a factor. Cameron and Adams are both attorneys. Cameron brings experience with Mitch McConnell, the leader of both the United States Senate and the state's rejuvenated Republican Party. Adams has experience working with other state executives in his role as an election lawyer.

Much depends on each individual's personal ambitions. Harmon and Quarles were both state legislators before moving into their executive elected positions. Ball is the mother of a young child and may prefer family time over the demands that the governorship would impose on her schedule.

Do any of these individuals stand out? Will they be jockeying amongst themselves for position at the top of the discussion list prior to the actual filing begins?

These are the first names that come to mind when you start talking about 2023 contenders, but they aren't the only ones. Rep. Jamie Comer lost the GOP primary to Bevin by only 83 votes in 2015, but found new political life when Ed Whitfield retired and Comer took his place as 1st District congressman. It seems that Comer has settled into his D.C. career, but sometimes it appears as if he never got over losing that race four years ago, and still has his eye on the governor's office.

None of the other members of the federal delegation would seem to be in the mix. All of them (Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Hal Rogers, and Andy Barr) appear to be content with serving in Congress, and really have never looked to have designs on a Frankfort office during their tenures.

There may be some state legislators who are interested. Much as Rocky Adkins ran for the Democratic nomination this year, there might be a Republican who has their eyes on a bigger prize. It will be interesting to see if any outspoken leaders or fresh faces emerge as the General Assembly conducts business for the next few sessions. David Williams, when he was Senate president, sought to move up. There doesn't seem to be any indication that his successor, Robert Stivers, would be interested in following suit.

And, is there an unknown quantity out there? Another business person interested in stepping into politics? A Matt Bevin, a Wallace Wilkinson, a John Y. Brown, or even a Donald Trump? No one saw Bevin's rise to the governor's office coming, especially after his landslide loss to McConnell in the 2014 GOP Senate primary. Yet he pulled the upset in the primary, and then again in the general election.

Some may say it's too early to start looking toward 2023, but they're wrong. The time to start planning Beshear's defeat is now. There's a good team to choose from, and possibly some other players will emerge as we move forward. Keep an eye out for these political figures, and be on the lookout for an unknown, when campaigning starts for the next governor's race three years from now.

Daniel Cameron's mission, should he choose to accept it

It's pretty much a fact that Ernie Fletcher would have been re-elected as Kentucky's governor in 2007 if not for the actions of Attorney General Greg Stumbo.

Stumbo took an exaggerated allegation of misconduct into political influence in hiring, turned it into a prosecution of Fletcher and many in his administration, and then the Democrats were successfully able to use the "scandal" to bring down Fletcher and elect Steve Beshear in his place.

Volumes could be written on how Stumbo misused his authority, how the press failed to report facts that would have shifted public opinion on Fletcher, and how the entire investigation was sour grapes from a political party angry because they'd been denied the governor's office for the first time in more than three decades.

But it's all said and done now, and on Tuesday Kentucky voters rejected Stumbo's attempt to take the attorney general's seat back over. But the fact remains that if not for Stumbo's personnel probe, there would have been no negatives in the way of Fletcher's re-election.

To a lesser extent, it could be argued that current Attorney General Andy Beshear played a huge role in Gov. Matt Bevin's loss on Tuesday. While it's true that Bevin's own comments were the major factor in why teachers led the charge to deny him re-election, Beshear's constant parade to the courthouse to sue Bevin's administration didn't hurt. And while -- surprise, surprise -- the media didn't report that Bevin won more of those legal battles than did Beshear, Beshear got all the positive press from them. Beshear even got praise from Stumbo for challenging the committee substitute legislative process, which is something Stumbo used often during his days as a legislator and House speaker.

So, this is the situation into which steps Attorney General-elect Daniel Cameron. As a Republican, he'll be going up against Democrat Beshear, who is moving up into the governor's office. What will Cameron do? Will he be as Stumbo was to Fletcher, or Beshear was to Bevin? Or will he be a go-along-to-get-along type, reflective of the attitude of his mentor, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who frequently angers conservatives for his willingness to acquiesce to liberals and not stand up against them and for conservative principles?

Cameron has already said he will do his job without regard for his personal beliefs, which is more than either Beshear or his predecessor, Jack Conway, did. Both of them refused to defend duly-passed state laws from court challenges. Watch police-themed television shows, such as "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," and you'll frequently hear the phrase, "We don't get to pick the vic(tim)." This is similar. The attorney general's job is to defend state laws, whether the officeholder agrees with the law or not. The decision on the constitutionality of a law is not for the AG's office to decide. That falls to the courts.

But will Cameron be as aggressive in going after Beshear as Stumbo was Fletcher (criminally) or Beshear was Bevin (civilly)? For the sake of stopping his liberal agenda, we can only hope.

It's possible Cameron will be tested early. The legislature is still controlled by Republicans, with supermajorities in both houses. If the legislature has any gumption, it will ignore Beshear's budget proposals and move forward with its own agenda. Hopefully, this will include more pension reforms and school reforms. With the change in administration in the Executive Branch, it's doubtful that Beshear's Labor Cabinet will take any action should teachers engage in another illegal sickout to come to Frankfort and protest during the General Assembly session. It will be up to Cameron to prosecute them, since it's already been established that these sickouts are indeed against the law. Here's hoping he will.

With the GOP's sweep of all statewide office except the governor's race by commanding margins, the party has a clear mandate. And there are lots of rising young stars holding those offices. The governor's race in 2023 has to already be on the minds of some of them. Lots of people have already tagged Cameron as one of the brightest of those rising stars.

This is Cameron's chance to shine in a state that's trending Republican in every way except total voter registration. Does he become the face of the opposition to stand in the way of Andy Beshear undoing the gains of the last four years? Or does he stand aside and let this state go backwards? Here's hoping he lives up to the mission that's now set before him.

The commonwealth's next steps after Kentucky's statewide elections

Kentucky conservatives got a mixed outcome from Tuesday's elections. They dominated every statewide race except the one at the top that counts the most, and even now that race is too close to call.

If things hold up, presumptive Gov. Andy Beshear will be a Democrat on an island of Republicans in Frankfort. Every other constitutional office and both houses of the General Assembly will be in the hands of his opposition, which hopefully will serve as a major buffer against the damage he will do this state.

It's frustrating to see the commonwealth take a step backwards, given that it will take at least 30 years of uninterrupted Republican rule to undo all the damage the Democrats have done to the state during their decades in power. Beshear will be able to reverse much of what Matt Bevin did via executive order, assuming the legislature or new Attorney General Daniel Cameron don't challenge him. Do these Republicans have the gumption to do the right thing, or will they -- like the GOP is prone to do -- go along to get along? Will they give Beshear a honeymoon or will they stand on their principles?

Of course, Beshear actually has to be sworn into office first. With a statewide margin of around 5,000 votes, and more than a few questions about irregularities, Bevin is wisely pursuing a recanvass of the votes. This will involve checking totals from voting machines and adding them up again to ensure the total is as originally reported. I saw one comment that if only two voters in each Kentucky voting precinct had voted for Bevin instead of Beshear, Bevin would have been re-elected.

Beyond a recanvass, Kentucky's law for requesting a recount in a state election is a bit of an oddity. If this was a local election, then a candidate requesting a recount would simply ask for one with the local board of elections and the court system. It's a formal process, paid for by the requestor, that involves extensive examination of the voting machines to make sure votes were accurately recorded. But for state elections, such as the gubernatorial race, the requestor has to make that request of the General Assembly via contesting the election. The House and Senate assemble a committee that guides the process, and then the legislature makes the decision. A tight legislative race went through this process last year until the petitioner withdrew the request. Should a 5,000-vote margin hold up through the process, there can be little doubt that the legislature would declare Beshear the winner. But if things get dicey, it's possible that the Republican legislature could choose the Republican incumbent as the winner. That would most certainly trigger a court case that could leave the outcome undecided as next year's biennial budget session gets underway.

But those are far-fetched scenarios. The likelihood is that Andy Beshear is, indeed, going to be the governor when December rolls into January.

So, what happens then? Beshear is a minority of one going up against the rest of Frankfort. How much of his agenda and his budget will the Republican-controlled House and Senate be willing to give him? Will the legislature proceed on its own priorities and override any Beshear vetoes? How many victories do they allow the new governor to have as he, in essence, immediately starts campaigning for re-election in four years?

The wild cards in the deck are Cameron and Auditor Mike Harmon. Will Cameron, as attorney general, do to Beshear what Beshear did to Bevin? Looking back to 2003-07, will Cameron and Harmon play the roles of Greg Stumbo and Crit Luallen with Beshear as Ernie Fletcher? And how much posturing will take place among officeholders Cameron, Harmon, Ryan Quarles, Michael Adams, and Allison Ball, with the GOP gubernatorial nomination for 2023 now wide-open?

The biggest winners in the whole equation may be the taxpayers of Kentucky. Once the General Assembly started holding annual sessions, one of the greatest lines concerning Bluegrass State politics became void. There used to be an old joke about how the state would be better off if the legislature met for two days every 60 years instead of 60 days every two years. With a Democrat in the Governor's Office and Republicans controlling a supermajority in both houses of the legislature, gridlock may rule the day. And if nothing's getting passed, no one's taxes are being increased and no one's freedoms are being taken away. That's a benefit for all of us.

It's an interesting time in Kentucky government. None of us have ever seen this particular situation before. It's likely to be a wild ride, so to quote NASCAR announcer and former crew chief Larry MacReynolds, "reach up and pull those belts tight one more time."

The most important reason to vote for Daniel Cameron for Kentucky attorney general

He's not Greg Stumbo.

Should Kentucky volunteer to be like Tennessee?

It's a statement of fact that Tennessee is doing better economically than Kentucky, and has been doing so for years. We here in Big Blue Nation may not want to admit that our neighbors to the south are better than us in anything besides college football, but the facts speak for themselves.

Why is this the case? What advantages could the Volunteer State possibly have over the Bluegrass?

Kentucky and Tennessee were both admitted to the Union around the same time, the first two states west of the Appalachians. They are similar in size and terrain. They have similar resources, although Kentucky has more coal, oil, and natural gas reserves. They both have a network of freeways that criss-cross the state. Tennessee does have the Tennessee Valley Authority dams and lakes, which provide both cheap hydroelectricity and a navigable waterway all the way from Knoxville to the Tennessee River's mouth at Paducah. (In contrast, Kentucky and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowed the locks on the Kentucky River to deteriorate to the point where the river is no longer navigable past Frankfort.) Both are well-served by railroads (remember the venerable Louisville & Nashville, which could as easily have been named Lexington & Knoxville?) Both have major airline freight hubs -- Kentucky has two, since the Cincinnati airport is actually on Bluegrass soil.

Tennessee has Jack Daniels. Kentucky has Maker's Mark and Jim Beam and Woodford Reserve and a number of other high-end whiskeys. Tennessee has Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville. Kentucky has Louisville, Lexington, and a large section of greater metropolitan Cincinnati on this side of the river spread out amongst several municipal governments.

Kentucky lies farther north, and thus closer to the nation's traditional industrial capitals. Tennessee is to the south, nearer to the Sun Belt. The climate is similar, although we typically have worse snowy winters and they have more miserably hot and humid summers.

We have a better basketball team, but they have a better football team. We have Rupp Arena, they have Neyland Stadium.

Look at the states side-by-side, and it would stand to reason that they should be as similar economically as they are on paper. But that's not the case. Tennessee has grown in population and business opportunities, while Kentucky has declined. One state official said last week that at the end of World War II, Kentucky had a similar population to both Tennessee and Indiana. Yet both of those states have grown dramatically, while Kentucky's population has shrunk.

One argument in Tennessee's favor for its growth has been its status as a right-to-work state. Tennessee passed legislation in 1947 forbidding the requiring of union membership as a condition of employment. Unions are free to organize in workplaces, but employees can't be made to join if they don't want to. This is often derisively called "right to work for less" since some claim that wages are lower in right-to-work states, but the counterargument is that it's better to create 100 jobs paying $30,000 a year than it is to create zero jobs paying $50,000 annually.

Kentucky passed right-to-work in 2016, and the legislation has been credited for Braidy Industries' decision to built an aluminum mill in the Ashland area that would have otherwise gone to another state, so there really hasn't been time yet to see how much of an equalizing effect it will have on job creation with Tennessee.

So again, why? What's the reason Tennessee's flourishing? Many point to the state's differing tax codes.

It's well-known that Tennessee doesn't have an income tax. Eight other states also don't have income taxes, among them Arizona, Florida, and Texas, which make those locations desirable for retirees. Tennessee also doesn't have a state property tax. This includes on vehicles, which causes Kentucky to occasionally roll out a "Freddie Freeroader" program to find Kentuckians who illegally register their cars in Tennessee. But Tennessee makes up for its lack of an income tax through sales taxes. The statewide rate is 7 percent, but unlike Kentucky, Tennessee charges a 5.5 percent sales tax on food. Kentucky repealed its sales tax on food in 1972, one of the few good things Wendell Ford ever did.

But Tennessee also allows local governments to levy a sales tax. Go to the Smokies and buy something from one of the shops in Gatlinburg or Pigeon Forge, and you'll pay close to 10 percent in sales taxes. I've always been baffled as to why people would use gas and drive four hours from home to buy the same stuff and pay more for it.

I've long said that the perfect place to live would be Harrogate, Tenn., just on the south side of the Cumberland Gap Tunnel. The scenery is beautiful, you wouldn't have to pay any income taxes, and you could drive five miles across the state line to Middlesboro to do all your shopping at a reduced tax rate.

Is Tennessee's tax code why it's doing so much better than Kentucky? Many believe so, including our own governor. He's been saying more frequently that Kentucky needs to abandon its income tax and increase its sales tax to become more competitive, and allow incomes and job opportunities to rise.

Personally, I've never been a fan of sales taxes. Those who advocate the elimination of income taxes and relying on consumption taxes are fond of calling it the "fair tax." The more you buy, the more you pay. Me, I prefer a flat earned income tax. Exempt a certain amount from taxation, and then tax every dollar of earned income above that level at a flat rate. A figure I've often floated is to exempt the first $30,000 for an individual or $60,000 for a married couple, with a $5,000 exemption per dependent, then tax anything over that level at a flat 15 percent. This allows everyone to earn a basic income tax-free to handle necessities, then taxes everything above that fairly.

When Kentucky's Republican legislature expanded the sales tax to certain services such as veterinary care and auto repair, Gov. Matt Bevin vetoed it. The General Assembly overrode his veto, however. Bevin wanted comprehensive tax reform, not just the services tax increase and income tax decrease the legislature voted in.

Based on what he's been saying lately, I part company with Gov. Bevin on this one. I don't support an elimination of the income tax, and I certainly don't support increasing the state sales tax from 6 percent to 8 percent, or enacting the mechanism to allow local governments to impose sales taxes. In other words, I don't want Tennessee's sales tax setup. An overall increase in Kentucky's sales tax might be more palatable if it continues to exempt food, but none of the proposals that have been mentioned have leaned one way or the other on taxing food.

Unsurprisingly, those who are most loudly protesting a proposed sales tax increase now were all in favor it it back in 1991 when Kentucky raised its rate from 5 percent to 6 percent as part of the Kentucky Education Reform Act. Some of us opposed that tax increase then and oppose this one that's being floated.

We want to beat Tennessee. On the basketball court, on the football field, and in the competition for economic success. But is making our tax code more like theirs the way to do it? At this stage, it doesn't appear so. Surely there are other ways of creating jobs and raising salaries than by increasing consumer prices.

The #WalkAway movement is alive and well in Kentucky

When I was growing up and in school, one of the surest ways to spark an argument was to ask a fellow student if they were a Democrat or a Republican. Never mind that back in our school days, none of us really knew what either party stood for. We were what our families were. If a Republican asked a fellow Republican, all was well. But if a Republican asked a Democrat, some pretty good verbal sparring was likely to ensue.

Over the past several years, the Kentucky Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging registered voters. Each month, the Republican Party of Kentucky releases updated voter registration numbers from the State Board of Elections. Those figures have consistently been showing voters switching parties and new voters registering as Republicans. It's typical for Republicans to show +2,500 voters, Democrats to show -1,500 voters, and independents only around +250 or so. It's clear that Democrats are fleeing their party and becoming Republicans at an amazing rate.

There's a name for the transition. It's called the #WalkAway movement and the "#WalkAway" hashtag pops up from time time to time on social media. That movement is on fire in Kentucky.

I grew up in a Republican county, so I had more friends to agree with than to argue with, but that wasn't the case in most places in Kentucky in the 1970s. Back then, Democrats outnumbered Republicans statewide around 2:1. Voter registration was around 60 percent for the D's, around 30 percent for the R's, with independents making up the remainder. The GOP held power in the state only in the swath of south-central, east-central, and southeastern counties that made up the old Fifth Congressional District that was represented for years by Tim Lee Carter and then Hal Rogers. When Kentucky lost a congressional seat in the 1990s, Democrats controlled both houses of the General Assembly and the governor's office, and thus tried to gerrymander Rogers out of his seat by putting him in a district consisting mostly of old Seventh District counties where the late Carl D. Perkins had been in Congress seemingly since Noah put the animals two-by-two on the Ark. It didn't work. One might look to Rogers holding onto his seat when thrust into politically hostile territory as a sign of what was to come.

Lots has changed on the Bluegrass political landscape since those days. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who got elected in 1984 by upsetting the Democrat incumbent, was building the state GOP. First through party switches and then at the ballot box, Republicans took over the state Senate. Ernie Fletcher broke through in 2003 to become Kentucky's first Republican governor in 32 years, defeating the grandson of legendary Democrat A.B. "Happy" Chandler to do so. After eight years of Steve Beshear, Matt Bevin took the governor's office back for the GOP in 2015. And finally, the following year, after a couple of close calls, the Republicans flipped the House of Representatives and earned a supermajority in the process.

Now, the GOP dominates the federal delegation, with five of six representatives, plus both senators. For the first time, there are more Republican county judges-executive than Democrats. After twice giving Kentucky's electoral votes to Bill Clinton, the Bluegrass State has gone for the Republican in the last five presidential elections. And for the first time, the GOP has a majority of the statewide constitutional offices, with its eye on a complete sweep in next month's election.

What's amazing to me is how so many rock-ribbed Democrats have seen the light. After this state's suffering at the hands of Democrat control for so many years, they've decided they've had enough. It's gratifying to see so many of those hard-core Democrats with whom I argued politics back in high school turning into conservative Republicans. Even children of Democrats who were elected officials are abandoning the party of their parents. My own county judge-executive was a Democrat for years, and his father ran for that job 35 years ago as a Democrat. He changed parties and was elected last year as a Republican.

And it's not just them. One person I came to know years later was the daughter of a very powerful Democrat in her hometown. She, too, was a "yellow dog" for most of her life. But when I connected with her on Facebook and viewed her profile, I was shocked to see her political views listed as "Until Obama, Democrat."

It's obvious these people have seen Kentucky's past and who has been in control of state policies and purse strings for decades. They note our state's failures and know we can do better with the right people and philosophies in charge. Democrats have had the reins for years and have steered us in the wrong direction. They realize it's time for a change. They see Republicans putting new ideas and new energy into their local communities and national and state initiatives, and they want to be a part of the reversal and rebirth.

The national media has started referring to Kentucky as a Republican state -- or, given how they color presidential election maps, a red state. That's not wholly true yet. But we're getting there.

Don't be surprised if Republicans aren't the majority of registered voters in as little as five years, when enough people have finally walked away from the past policies that have held us back.

Democrats' positions on military force change with the seasons

It's been fascinating to watch the reactions to President Trump's decision to remove troops from Syria.

It could be foreseen that many Republicans opposed this move. What's surprising is how most Democrats have spoken out against it, as well.

The Republican opposition is consistent with the conservative view on military intervention, but the Democrats are reversing course on a position they've held for years.

Think back to the early 2000s. How many Democrats opposed the use of force in Iraq, and how many even opposed retaliating against Afghanistan and the Taliban for the Sept, 11, 2001 attacks on America? Democrats have consistently been in favor of a smaller American military presence in the Middle East, but when it comes to Trump, their opposition to him outweighs their traditional positions. Many who opposed the use of force in the past have done a 180 and are now decrying the pullout.

The Democrats basically drummed Joe Lieberman, their 2000 vice presidential nominee and a reliable liberal vote on just about every issue, out of their party because of his views on national defense and the use of force. He won his last senatorial election from Connecticut as an independent. Will they apologize to him and welcome him back into the fold because they've now adopted his position?

While Democrats usually remained united in their position on the issue until their recent pivot, there have always been two camps among the Republicans. Those who championed the use of force, such as John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and the late John McCain, were often called "hawks" or the oft-misapplied pejorative "neocons." But there's always been a vocal libertarian-leaning contingent, including Kentucky's own Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, that has been opposed to the use of force in distant lands and have been loud "bring the troops home" advocates.

That's what most of the Democrats have been saying for years, too, until Trump did exactly that. Because Trump supported it, they suddenly had to oppose what they had been advocating.

But what's really been funny to watch is how the Democrats have turned on one particular presidential candidate who agrees with Trump's decision and the "bring the troops home" position in general.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (she of the Jackson County, Ky., Gabbard lineage) is a down-the-line liberal on just about every issue they hold dear. But when she declined to condemn the withdrawal from Syria and expressed her support for the concept of ending American engagement in the Middle East, her fellow Democrats lost it. Hillary Clinton, in particular. Proving that she obviously hasn't gotten over losing the presidential election in 2016 and clinging to the belief that Trump was elected fraudulently (hint: he wasn't), she made allusions to Gabbard being "a Russian asset," and her spokesperson didn't deny she was talking about Gabbard when asked directly.

That's indicative of where many Democrats are today. They see Russians behind every tree. In Kentucky, they're even making Russia an issue in the governor's race because a proposed aluminum mill in the northeastern part of the state will have Russian investors. They've come a long way from 2012, when Mitt Romney said Russia was America's greatest threat and Barack Obama basically laughed him off.

Hillary, in particular, is a lost cause. She still can't accept that she's been twice rejected in her attempt to win the highest office in the land, once by her own party. I know of no one who voted for Trump because of Russian interference. They either voted for him because they liked what he was saying, or they saw through Hillary for what she was, or some combination of both. She thinks Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a Russian plant in 2016, and thinks Russia's grooming Gabbard to mount a third-party challenge after her inevitable departure from the Democrats' race. Either Hillary has forgotten that a lot of states have passed "sore-loser" laws that prohibit party primary candidates from running as an independent or third-party candidate in that same election, or she knows but chooses to ignore it since it doesn't fit her narrative. And now the whispers are starting once again that she's thinking about mounting yet another presidential bid. Gabbard even dared her to do so.

I can hear Donald Trump saying, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch," all the way from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the foothills of eastern Kentucky over that notion.

The idea that Gabbard is a Russian asset is beyond laughable. She serves in the Hawaii National Guard and has been deployed on combat missions in the Middle East. Sure, she's as much of a socialist as any of the rest of the presidential candidates on that side, but the notion that she's a Russian asset is just deranged. And only a few of her fellow presidential candidates have defended her from Hillary's goofy pronouncement. They were quick to admonish others not to talk about Joe Biden's Ukraine situation, but questioning Gabbard's patriotism wasn't a problem for them.

The Syrian situation has been fluid. It's complicated, and volumes have been written about it. Turkey and the Kurdish rebels have been battling for years. The Kurds helped us in the fight against Islamic terrorists, but the Turks are a NATO ally. At this writing, a cease-fire has been orchestrated. Trump was in a classic no-win situation here. Withdraw the troops, and we've abandoned a partner in the war on terror. Keep them there, and we're putting them in harm's way with no discernible American interest. Trump had campaigned on ending America's endless wars, and his message resonated with Americans who saw our troops continue to lose their lives 17 years after the 2001 attacks with no sight of a finish line.

Still, it's really surreal to watch their positions change like the wind just because Trump took a position they've held for years. Should Trump change his mind, they'd probably change their minds about the issue as well.