Rumors and the role of the press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rand gets his GOPaulcus – so what’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political correctness hinders full, robust debate on controversial issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some views on the news

My detractors – and even some of my friends – think I’m in the tank for the Republican Party.

They’re obviously not paying attention.

I tend to be more critical of Republicans than I am liberal Democrats. That’s because I have higher expectations of Republicans. I expect them to be conservative, and I don’t like it when they don’t act in a manner consistent with what they profess to believe. I don’t consider myself a partisan. I am, however, an ideologue, and proudly so. I usually tell people I’m not a Republican, but I’m a conservative.

That’s not a popular thing in certain circles. There are some people who believe our elected Republican leaders, especially in Washington D.C., can do no wrong. It’s heresy to criticize John Boehner or, especially in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. Express disappointment with something McConnell says or does and there are folks who will call you a liberal, say you don’t understand how government works, or otherwise belittle you simply because you’re tired of so-called conservatives acquiescing to liberal demands and positions.

But I’ve never been afraid to point out a bad idea, no matter where it comes from, and a couple of Kentucky Republicans floated a really bad one last week.

Senators Damon Thayer and Chris Girdler said they’d be filing a bill in next year’s General Assembly session to force local school districts to delay the start of classes each year. Currently, most school systems in eastern Kentucky go back the first week of August. Urban districts and those in less mountainous areas wait a week or two longer to begin the school year. Thayer and Girdler want to push back the starting date to either the last week of August or after Labor Day in September. They cite decreased tourism spending and increased school energy costs as the reason.

This is a bad idea. What they in essence propose is to trade the month of August for the month of June. Most eastern Kentucky districts hold classes right up until the end of May as it is, mostly due to weather concerns.  Even what my dad called a “skiff” of snow is enough to cause most rural systems to cancel classes. While state roads may be in good shape, county-maintained roads aren’t. Many school districts have snow plans, where they only run buses on main routes, but they’re hesitant to use those plans. Parents often keep their children home when buses run on a snow plan. This costs the schools money, because in Kentucky, schools are funded based on average daily attendance rather than enrollment.

When winters are exceptionally harsh, like this past one, classes can be pushed back into June even if the state grants a waiver for instructional days missed. Even this causes problems for some, and if August is basically swapped for June, those problems would be compounded.

Kentucky allows local school districts to hire teachers who only have their undergraduate degrees, but the law requires teachers to obtain a master’s degree within a certain number of years after they’re hired. Most teachers working to earn their post-graduate degree, or additional certification such as their Rank I accreditation, take summer classes. Colleges offer summer classes in June and July. If the teachers are busy in June in their classrooms, they can’t take the required college classes to be able to keep their jobs. Such a schedule change would be very detrimental to them.

When I was in school, we usually didn’t start classes until after the state fair had begun. My dad was a teacher, and we usually managed to make it to Louisville on a weekday to attend the fair before school got underway. But my sophomore, junior and senior years of high school coincided with the bad winters of 1977, 1978 and 1978. All three of those years, we got out of school for Christmas and only got a handful of days in before district tournament time in March. I graduated in the last week of May. After that, schools began starting the year earlier to make up for bad winters.

This isn’t the first time in recent months that I’ve disagreed with Girdler. Last year, he was harshly critical when the city of Somerset opened its own gas station to combat what city officials thought was gouging and collusion on prices. I thought Girdler was wrong then, and I think he’s wrong now.

*****

Speaking of gas prices, news reports last week said the cost of a gallon of gas would be going up in Kentucky because of a BP refinery shutdown in Indiana. We, along with a number of Great Lakes states, were said to be the ones most affected by the problem.

That’s funny. I thought Kentucky was under the thumb of Marathon, and that the Marathon refinery in Ashland had a monopoly on gasoline distribution in Kentucky, and that’s why we pay too much for gas. At least that’s what Jack Conway, attorney general and Democrat gubernatorial candidate, has always said. I guess this development blows a hole in Conway’s argument.

*****

And speaking of Conway, it’s become apparent that one of his key campaign points is going to be that his Republican opponent, Matt Bevin, is not a Kentucky native like Conway is.

Democrats must have short memories. Two decades ago, Kentucky’s governor was a Democrat named Brereton Jones. He must have been a Bluegrass native, right? Nope, he’s from West Virginia.

I guess non-native Kentuckians can only be governor when they’re Democrats, right?

Matt Bevin: Striking fear in the hearts of Democrats and establishment Republicans alike

It’s hard to tell who’s more frightened of Matt Bevin winning the governor’s race: Kentucky Democrats, who are used to controlling the reins of state government; or establishment Republicans, who fear not being invited to the party as he sets up his administration.

The reason Democrats are terrified is easy to discern. They don’t want to lose their grip on patronage hiring, awarding of contracts, spending on governmental programs and the other trappings of power that they’ve come to expect as their birthright in the commonwealth.

It would be awful if the local Democrat chairman can’t decide who should get scarce state jobs in the local highway garages or social services offices. If bigwigs in Frankfort can’t reward donors with contracts, which are often hidden inside other contracts that are written in such a way so as to remove any chance of competitive bidding, they’ll be unable to wield power. And if funding is cut for their pet programs, they lose the opportunity to keep voters beholden to them.

But why are some Republicans so scared? If they are really opposed to the policies that would be continued or implemented during a Jack Conway administration, why are so many expressing reservations about Bevin?

The obvious answer is that there’s little difference between a Democrat and an establishment Republican, which is why they’ve been given the derisive nickname of RINO, for “Republican In Name Only.” But is something else going on? Are there petty jealousies involved? Most likely, yes.

One well-known Republican columnist, who has a reputation for being a Mitch McConnell sycophant, has written several opinion pieces blasting Bevin and expressing doubts if he’d be any better of a governor than Conway. He, apparently, has not gotten over the fact that Bevin dared to challenge his political idol in an attack from the right flank in last year’s U.S. Senate primary.

And another well-respected columnist, whose work appears in several papers across the state, has published allegations that several unnamed Republican officials and party leaders are worried that Bevin would bring in a number of Tea Party types and others who are unfamiliar with how Frankfort works.

And this is a bad thing? After nearly four decades of almost-continuous one-party control, Frankfort needs an enema. The capital city is full of people who are wed to inefficient and wasteful bureaucratic policies and procedures. There is a “we’ve always done it this way” mentality that needs to be exterminated. The one-size-fits-all approach the state uses is too inflexible to deal with real-world situations. The entire system needs to be overhauled from top to bottom.

Entrenched interests won’t get it done. Outsiders with fresh, bold ideas are required to make the changes Kentucky needs.  Establishment Republicans haven’t been able to change Washington, D.C. They’ve had control of Congress for two years now, yet they haven’t forced President Obama’s hand on anything yet. Why not try Tea Party ideas? Do the RINOs really think they have the answers, especially when the base of the party has a hard time telling a RINO from a Democrat these days?

The establishment has a jealous grip on its control of the GOP. Look at how poorly they’ve treated constitutional crusaders like Ted Cruz. And recall how righteously indignant McConnell’s troops were when Bevin ran against him last year and called him out for his anti-conservative actions.

Despite Jamie Comer’s bizarre speech at a non-political event long before the governor’s race even started about how he couldn’t be controlled, and despite the general wisdom that he was sympathetic to Tea Party causes, most of the state’s GOP establishment had lined up behind him in the primary. No doubt, his administration would have been comprised of many old-line Republicans that often dance to the same puppet masters as do the Democrats. That all changed when Comer torpedoed both his own candidacy and that of rival Hal Heiner late in the campaign, paving the way for Bevin.

And now, the establishment frets that it won’t be business as usual in Frankfort. And that’s a good thing. Real change requires real change agents, and the same old faces and ideas won’t get it done.

If recalcitrant Republicans allow Conway to be elected just because Bevin’s not a good ol’ boy who plays by the same go-along-to-get-along rules that McConnell and John Boehner do in D.C., then they’ll have no one but themselves to blame. Surely, they can’t think that a Bevin administration that espouses what Republican ideals are supposed to be would be worse than a Conway administration that stands in opposition to everything they hold dear. But power, and the desire to hold on to it, makes people do strange things.

The enigma that is Rand Paul

(Note: This column originally appeared in some Kentucky newspapers the week of July 27.)

Rand Paul is somewhat of an enigma.

He’s a favorite of many conservatives, yet he espouses positions that sound like they’d be right at home in the platforms of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

He’s seemingly changed his stance on so many issues that it’s hard to determine where he stands on some of them, getting a reputation among some of his detractors that he thrives on telling differing audiences exactly what they want to hear.

He’s tried to establish a bit of independence from his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, yet he relies on his father’s network of supporters and donors while at the same time trying to appeal to voters who aren’t fans of his dad’s brand of politics.

As one of the first announced presidential candidates, he spent some time at the top of the polls, but he’s taken a back seat lately as candidates with broader appeal (Scott Walker), establishment support (Jeb Bush) or a penchant for bombastically speaking truths (Donald Trump) have entered the race.

And he’s always asserted that being a Kentucky senator is his first priority, even as he started plotting a run for president almost as soon as his improbable election to the Senate in 2010 was certified.

It’s that last bit that has some people wondering, since the announcement last week that Paul will be skipping Kentucky’s most storied political event, the Fancy Farm picnic so he can campaign for president in New Hampshire, just how committed he is to defending his Senate seat.

That Fancy Farm revelation has some political pundits and observers wondering just how sincere Paul’s commitment to his re-election bid really is. Despite its location in a remote corner of the Jackson Purchase area in far western Kentucky, miles away from any major media markets, Fancy Farm is the “can’t miss” shindig for Bluegrass State political figures. And with elections for statewide offices on the ballot this year, there will be considerable interest in this year’s festivities.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned Paul’s push to have Kentucky Republicans switch from a primary election to a caucus to allow him to get around Kentucky’s law that would only allow him to run for one office at a time. The change to a caucus is not a done deal. State GOP leaders will be deciding within the next few weeks whether or not to move forward with that plan, and there is some opposition to it. If the party does not approve a caucus, then Paul will definitely have to decide whether he wants to pursue his presidential ambitions, or try to remain Kentucky’s junior senator.

Some are beginning to wonder if Paul’s inattention to his re-election efforts might allow a well-funded and aggressive Democrat to sneak in and claim the seat. Although no Democrat has yet announced an intention to run yet, several names have been floated. The Democrats have always prized having the controls of state government more than federal offices, though, so it’s most likely that any of them who are thinking of running next year will wait until after November’s elections to announce.  And it’s further possible that the likely candidates are running for statewide office this year (Alison Lundergan Grimes and Adam Edelen being two of the most oft-mentioned.)

Mitch McConnell still has a tenuous hold on control of the state GOP, despite a number of well-publicized stumbles in the last few years. One of his staffers was recently named executive director of the Republican Party of Kentucky. McConnell and Paul have a well-documented relationship that has always been a bit contentious. McConnell supported Trey Grayson over Paul in the 2010 GOP senatorial primary, but came on board for the general election. McConnell has voiced his support for Paul’s presidential aspirations, but no doubt his loyalties lie with Bush or another establishment candidate, as their views mesh better with McConnell’s than do Paul’s. McConnell has also thrown his support behind the idea of a presidential caucus, but given the fickle nature of McConnell’s loyalties, that could change. (Don’t believe me about that? Ask former Gov. Ernie Fletcher about that subject. Or former U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning.) McConnell and Paul recently had a well-publicized spat over surveillance issues that got a lot of attention nationally.

The next few weeks will be critical to Paul’s presidential campaign. They may also prove critical to his senatorial re-election bid. He may be forced, via one reason or another, to choose between them. How it all turns out will be as interesting to Kentucky political observers as the Donald Trump phenomenon now is on the national scene.

Trump energizes the GOP’s base but gives the party establishment heartburn

Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee for president. That’s all but certain. But his presence in the GOP primary is certainly making things interesting.

Trump’s entry into the race has energized much of the party’s base of conservative voters, who are tired of the party’s leaders and establishment pandering to liberal interests, especially on the subject of illegal immigration. But to the powers that be, Trump is a nightmare because he is challenging the party’s hierarchy on a matter where the leaders and their constituency are not on the same page.

By and large, conservatives oppose illegal immigration. They want the nation’s borders secured and illegal aliens prosecuted, and if possible, deported. They are tired of seeing jobs taken away from American citizens by illegals who will work for under-the-table payments. They see the national security threat posed by the flood of people who cross the border illegally. They also recognize that there is a process for immigrants to come here legally, and they want that process honored. They cringe at any mention of amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country.

On the other hand, the party’s establishment and its big donors turn a blind eye to the problem. They don’t mind the influx of cheap labor. If they can get by with paying illegals less than the minimum wage, they’re all for that.  They don’t want to lose their existing labor force, so they favor a system by which people already in the country illegally can get to stay.

Donald Trump is challenging their positions and making them uncomfortable. They don’t want to have to defend their support for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code for “let the illegals stay.” Therefore, there have been calls for Trump to tone down his rhetoric and an insistence that he not be allowed to participate in any presidential debates, the first of which is scheduled for next month. They point to all the outreach they’ve been trying to do to court the Hispanic vote, and they fear that Trump will undo all their efforts. It’s interesting that one candidate who hasn’t criticized Trump, Ted Cruz, has Hispanic lineage.

No one, other than an illegal alien, should take any offense at what Trump said. He wasn’t addressing those who have immigrated here lawfully, have all proper documentation, and aren’t breaking any laws. The GOP establishment acts so fearful that Trump will chase Hispanics away from the Republican Party. Don’t they listen when those who came here legally and went through the process as prescribed in law express outrage and resentment at those who came illegally?

Because Trump expressed a strong opinion on a subject most politicians from both parties would rather avoid, he’s suffered some business backlash. His response has been a thing of beauty. When NASCAR announced that it would not hold its season-ending awards banquet at a Trump property because of pressure from the sponsor of its truck racing series, Trump rubbed NASCAR’s nose in it. He said that he would simply keep their sizeable deposit for the use of his facility and then rent it out to someone else and make even more money in the process.

Trump isn’t the ideal Republican candidate. While he may be causing headaches for the establishment and delighting the party’s conservative base in the process, there are significant weaknesses in his candidacy. While he’s certainly not on the list of candidates for whom I wouldn’t vote under any circumstance (right now Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and Chris Christie are the primary occupants of that slate), and he’s not among my favorites (Ted Cruz is head and shoulders above everyone else on that list), I’d certainly have to give strong consideration to him should he survive the primary process.

But that’s not likely. The party hierarchy and the establishment will be gunning for him. They all seem to be gravitating toward Bush, but perhaps this will be the year the Republicans nominate a true conservative after the failures of moderate-to-liberal candidates in the last two presidential elections. If John McCain and Mitt Romney couldn’t win, why should anyone think Jeb Bush can?

In the meantime, it will be fun to sit back and watch Trump make the GOP establishment squirm. It’s time they got the message that the party doesn’t want to be led from the top down, but they want the party’s leaders to reflect the grassroots sentiment. So far, Trump has tapped into that populist sentiment, and the entertainment value is priceless.

Government gets in its own way, and my hometown suffers as a result

Beattyville, my hometown, was rocked a few weeks ago by the news that Lee Adjustment Center would be closing at the end of June.

The private prison, owned by Corrections Corporation of America, is one of the largest private employers in the area. After CCA lost a contract renewal bid to house prisoners from Vermont, it was announced that facility would close its doors. As a result, a community that’s already suffering from a long list of economic and social problems takes another blow.

It didn’t have to be this way, but governmental decisions played a big role in LAC’s fate.

LAC opened around 1990, built by United States Correctional Corporation on land that was originally slated to be an industrial park, and housed prisoners from Kentucky. USCC was purchased by CCA around 1998, and CCA operated the prison since then. There were two other private prisons in Kentucky, both since closed, opened by USCC and bought by CCA. About the same time that LAC opened, the state opened the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex in West Liberty. Still, there were enough Kentucky convicts to accommodate the state’s penal institutions and the private prisons.

(In the interest of transparency, I need to make a couple of disclosures. Relatives on my mother’s side of the family owned an interest in some of the property originally purchased for the industrial park in the early 1980s, and some of the proceeds from that sale made their way to me when my maternal grandmother died in 1987 and a cousin died in 2000. In addition, I originally opposed the siting of a prison on the property because the facility originally was a medium security lockup with no perimeter fence. I was worried that an escapee might make his way to my paternal grandmother’s home, just a couple of miles away, and break in and harm her. Although there were a few walkaways before a fence was built, thankfully none ever posed a threat to my grandmother.)

A couple of things happened after Kentucky began using the private prisons. In the early 2000s, the state built Little Sandy Correctional Complex near Sandy Hook in Elliott County, only about 25 miles north of EKCC in West Liberty. Construction costs are not readily available, but for comparison purposes, it cost more than $72 million to build EKCC about 15 years earlier. The state opened Little Sandy in 2005 despite the presence of two private prisons within the Commonwealth’s borders.

Elliott County is the home of powerful Democrat Rocky Adkins, who currently serves as the majority floor leader in the Kentucky House of Representatives. (Again, in the interests of transparency, I went to college with Adkins and considered him an acquaintance). Is it a coincidence that the state built a new prison in his home county, despite private prison beds being available? It’s doubtful, especially given this state’s political history and which party dominates state government. The new prison added more than 200 people to the state’s payroll – further straining the troubled state pension system, it should be noted – while housing more than 1,000 prisoners, some of whom could have been lodged at LAC.

The second thing that happened was that number of new county or regional jails and detention centers were built after LAC opened. Many of these were built with more capacity than necessary so the local governments could make money housing state prisoners. This, too, siphoned away prisoners who could have been held at LAC.

This glut of prison beds didn’t portend good things for LAC and CCA’s other two prisons. The Otter Creek facility in Floyd County, which had housed female prisoners, had been a source of problems for years, so the state pulled its female convicts from that facility and moved them elsewhere. And in 2010, the state cancelled its contract with CCA and removed all Kentucky prisoners from LAC and the Marion Adjustment Center, near Lebanon in central Kentucky.

LAC responded by taking prisoners from other states, most notably Vermont. There were efforts to bring in prisoners from elsewhere, most notably West Virginia, but that plan died when it was discovered that the constitution of our neighbor to the east forbids shipping prisoners out of state to serve their sentences. CCA also attempted to win a contract to house federal prisoners a couple of years ago, but that effort fell through.

So when CCA got underbid by another private prison earlier this year for the Vermont contract, the facility announced its closure. Some have been quick to blame local officials for not doing more to save the jobs, but in reality there was little they could do. This was a business decision between the state government of Vermont and a private company headquartered in Tennessee. If any blame can be assigned for LAC’s closure, much of it should go to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for building new state-owned prisons when adequate private facilities already existed.

So, what now for LAC? Its former employees will be searching for jobs in an already depressed market. Many will go on unemployment and quite possibly will have to sign up for other government benefits.

There’s one possible solution, if only government will get out of the way. A new federal prison has been proposed for Letcher County, but it’s running into some opposition, most notably environmental and permitting concerns. Instead of spending millions of dollars to build a new facility, and jumping through the hurdles required to install infrastructure, it makes sense for the federal government to buy LAC from CCA and use it for the new federal prison, right? After all, the facility is already there, it has the necessary utilities, there’s a trained workforce in place and the purchase price would probably be far less than the cost of building a new prison.

But once again, it looks as if logic and government are mutually exclusive. When I posed this possibility a few weeks ago, a representative from Congressman Hal Rogers’ office said she wasn’t sure if that was allowable under federal Bureau of Prisons policy.

If it’s not, it should be. Government decisions are what sealed LAC’s fate. It’s time for the government to get out of its own way and foster economic development in impoverished areas, not impede it. Kentucky’s decision to build a state prison in Elliott County as a bit of political payback essentially made it impossible for LAC to continue to operate. If there are bureaucratic obstacles to the federal government buying LAC, the feds need to eliminate them.

I wish the best for the LAC employees who now face the uncertainty of unemployment and a job search in a difficult region. And I wish the government would do as much to help those folks as it’s done to cause their plight.

Conway opens his gubernatorial campaign by barking up the wrong tree on gas prices

Even before he knew who his Republican gubernatorial opponent will be this fall – and indeed, even before his own all-but-certain nomination by the Democrats was official – Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway fired his first shot in his bid to win the Bluegrass State’s top spot.

Unfortunately for him, his shot was a dud, missing the mark entirely.

Conway has long railed against gasoline pricing in Kentucky, blaming high costs at the pump on what he asserts is a monopoly on the wholesale market in the state by Marathon Petroleum. His latest salvo was a lawsuit filed in federal court last month. During his remarks following the filing of the suit, Conway lashed out at the Federal Trade Commission for what he calls inaction on his complaints about Marathon and its business practices since buying the Ashland Oil refinery in Boyd County several years ago.

Given the fact that the FTC is part of the Obama administration, and knowing how Democrats hate “Big Oil” and are constantly criticizing oil companies for ripping off consumers, if Obama’s FTC isn’t acting on Conway’s complaints, there must not be anything to them.

But at any rate, Conway’s ire is misguided. Instead of complaining about Marathon’s alleged refinery monopoly costing consumers money, he should really be looking at the collusion on pricing by retailers within individual markets.

If you travel much, it doesn’t take long to notice a pattern. Gas prices are pretty much the same at every station in a small town or community, or at every retailer in a certain area of a larger city. Within the city limits of Beattyville, there are four gas stations owned by three separate companies. Yet the price is the same at each one. Ditto for Jackson. Drive down the town’s main drag, and the price is the same at each of the five stations you’ll pass. When the price goes up at one, it’s not long before it goes up at all the others.

A few weeks ago, I had to go to Whitesburg for work. You can’t go any farther southeast in Kentucky than the Letcher County seat. Keep going in that direction, and you’ll be in Virginia in a few miles. Whitesburg is 80 miles from the Mountain Parkway, so it’s not exactly the most accessible place in the Bluegrass State. Yet gas prices there were consistently below $2.50 a gallon, easily the cheapest in the region. Still, all the stations there were selling gas for the same price.

Gas buyers will go out of their way for a bargain. It’s not uncommon for them to drive across town to save a few cents a gallon, spending more than they end up saving. Yet there’s no logical explanation for all stations in a certain market keeping their prices the same. Why won’t one station set its price a nickel a gallon less than everyone else to undercut the competition? There has to be collusion going on between the stations to keep gas at the same price. That’s the only logical explanation.

If one station lowers its prices, it makes good business sense for competitors to lower theirs. But where’s the logic in raising your prices when everyone else does?

Conway’s statement that the state is monopolized by the Ashland refinery is false on its face. When the city of Somerset opened its own gas station in an attempt to lower prices in the area, it made a big deal of pointing out that the city’s station would be buying its fuel from the recently-reopened Somerset Oil refinery. So there are other options available, but Conway wants to pretend otherwise. It’s easier for him to gripe about the big bad oil companies rather than looking for true solutions.

If Conway is really serious about lowering gas prices, here’s what he needs to do. Instead of complaining in front of the media and filing lawsuits that won’t go anywhere, he needs to send his investigators out into the state. Pick a town, any town, where prices are all the same. Let his team start asking how the retailers set their prices, and why they always raise their prices when certain competitors do. There have been press quotes from some gas station employees saying they’ve been told to raise their prices whenever the station across the street does so. Wonder if they’ll say the same thing if an “unsworn falsification to authorities” charge hangs over their heads?

But for some reason, Conway doesn’t want to risk alienating the gas station owners. He’d rather point fingers at a huge conglomerate and blame them instead of going after the root of the problem. He gets headlines and makes it look like he cares about consumers, but the reality is something totally different. If Conway wants to protect consumers, he’ll take a serious look at collusion among retailers. He can either eliminate it if it exists, or force them to provide a logical and believable explanation as to why everyone in town sells gas for the same price, and the collusion that seems so evident is really just a mirage.

Journalistic malpractice committed in Kentucky Republican governor’s race

Even before I left the journalism profession, I’d become critical of the way the news is covered. From the stories that are chosen vs. those that are ignored, to the way certain stories are presented, I saw journalism, especially the kind practiced by daily newspapers, swirling around the drain a long time ago.

But now that I’m on the other side of things, and have had the misfortune to be misquoted or have a quote taken out of context as a source for a news story (thankfully, very rarely,) I see it even more clearly.

As someone who remains a staunch defender of the First Amendment and appreciates the role the press is supposed to play, this pains me. But day after day, I see journalistic malpractice being committed to the extent that it’s becoming obvious that most of the traditional mainstream media’s wounds are self-inflicted. 

Nowhere was this more evident than in the just-concluded Kentucky Republican gubernatorial primary. It’s hard to picture a bigger failure of journalists to do their jobs than in the way the governor’s race was covered.

A key factor in this year’s four-way primary, won by Louisville resident Matt Bevin by a razor-thin margin, was the role that blogger Michael Adams played in the race. Adams, you’ll recall, is the person who began making allegations that Jamie Comer assaulted a college girlfriend. His charges circulated around the Internet for months, but finally floated to the surface when the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that Adams had contacted the campaigns of two of Comer’s Republican rivals, Hal Heiner and Will T. Scott, to peddle his allegations. (Some nontraditional media outltes reported that Adams also made contact with the campaign of Attorney General Jack Conway, who was the presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee).

When Adams’ assertions hit the mainstream, the race blew wide open. Adams had been trying to convince Comer’s ex-girlfriend to give him information, but she refused. When the Herald-Leader story hit print, she felt compelled to contact The Courier-Journal to confirm the allegations. The rest is well-known. Comer blamed Heiner for spreading the story, accused his ex-girlfriend of making the story up for money, and the fallout is widely believed to have damaged both of them and allowed Bevin to emerge victorious by a scant 83 votes.

The big player in the race was clearly Adams, but why didn’t the media investigate him? Why did they never dig into his motivation for opposing Comer so ardently? How could they allow him to affect the race the way he did without questioning why? The closest anyone came was a story by CNHI’s political reporter Ronnie Ellis, but his story consisted mainly of Auditor Adam Edelen complaining about Adams’ prior involvement in a legislative race in Clark County. Giving Edelen, a Democrat, space to go on a partisan rant against how Adams was involved in opposition research against another Democrat a few years ago is hardly the same as shining some light on his motivation for getting involved in the governor’s race this year.

By not investigating Adams’ reasons for attacking Comer so viciously, but letting Adams’ revelations dominate the news as the campaign entered its final stretch, the media failed. And the press failed again by latching on to Adams’ more salacious allegations, yet not exploring his more substantive charges.

Comer ran primarily on his record the past four years as commissioner of agriculture. Adams made several claims that Comer has mismanaged the state’s pilot industrial hemp project, yet no one ever looked into those charges. One would think that from a policy standpoint, that would be more important than a “he said, she said” matter from two decades ago. But I can’t recall having seen any media outlet doing a story about the hemp issue. 

There were other media mistakes made as well. One of Comer’s top assistants in the Department of Agriculture left her official job and went to work for his campaign, then abruptly quit. Several prominent Comer supporters and donors, including family members of this former staffer, switched their support from Comer to Heiner. Some perfunctory reporting was done on their change of favored candidate, but no one looked into the bigger picture, including why a trusted aide left Comer’s side. Speculation ran rampant in cyberspace, but nothing was ever put on the record.

The domestic abuse allegations were low-hanging fruit. I’d been aware of them for months, long before they hit the mainstream, but didn’t consider them credible until the ex-girlfriend confirmed them. It would have taken a little more investigating to check out the charges of mismanagement of the hemp program, but that wasn’t as eye-catching or glamorous as allegations of physical abuse. And it would have required even more digging to get the scoop on the source of the charges himself.

We may never know what prompted Adams to turn into an anti-Comer zealot.  Had the press done its job, we would have found out. What if Adams decides to get involved in another race this fall? Will the press then try to learn what makes him tick, but only after he had an unscrutinized impact on the GOP gubernatorial primary?

When The C-J published the story in which Comer’s college girlfriend confirmed the abuse allegations, Comer’s attorney threatened a lawsuit. To date, none has been filed. A better case could be made against the entire Kentucky journalistic community for malpractice during the GOP primary. It’s too bad such an action isn’t possible.