RINOs on the rampage and COINs aplenty

Rhinos may be an endangered species, but RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are multiplying at record rates.

There may have been a coin shortage last year during the height of the Wuhan Chinese virus pandemic, but there's definitely no shortage of COINs (Conservatives Only In Name).

At a time when the Republican Party's grassroots is staying true to and standing firm on conservative principles, the party's establishment moves more and more to the left. The party's core voters and activists grow angrier by the day as they watch this shift and the betrayal of their values.

Indeed, for a short period earlier this year, I changed my registration from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party, mostly out of anger with Mitch McConnell for his failure to stand strong for conservative ideals and against the Democrats. McConnell is the classic RINO. He embraces the big-government policies of the left and has opposed both the tea party conservative and Donald Trump populist movements within the GOP; the movements that have fueled the party's meteoric rise in Kentucky to the point where Republicans are about to overtake Democrats in voter registration, something that was unthinkable even a decade ago. But I ended up changing back so I could have a say in choosing GOP nominees during the primary election process.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and individual rights. But you wouldn't know it from the way many Kentucky Republican officials conduct themselves, no doubt inspired by their leader McConnell.

Constitutional lawyer, best-selling author, and conservative radio and television host Mark Levin calls these charlatans "Repubicans" and he's definitely on-target where many Bluegrass GOPers are concerned.

Kentucky Republican legislators and other elected officials continue to beat the drum for a gasoline tax increase. The new General Assembly majority inflicted Kentuckians with a sales tax on services such as auto repairs and veterinary services a few years ago. They turned down a chance to impeach Gov. Andy Beshear and remove him from office earlier this  year despite his blatant violations of the United States Constitution. (Remember that Beshear has lost every federal court case brought against him over the constitutionality of his Kung Flu mandates).

And now into the fray comes Tres Watson, former communications director for the Republican Party of Kentucky and still someone who moves in the upper echelon of the GOP establishment.

Via his Twitter account, earlier this week Watson declared his support for forcing all public employees to take the Kung Flu vaccine.

You read that right. A bigwig in the party that purports to champion individual freedoms and liberties is advocating that those liberties be taken away from a certain segment of the population. That's a pretty liberal position to take. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? You'd  expect Beshear or Dementia Joe Biden or Andrew Cuomo to push forced vaccinations. Not a prominent Republican.

Truth be told, Republicans are often the lesser of two evils. There's nothing really conservative about Kentucky's legislative leaders. During the past two General Assembly sessions, with the specter of Kung Flu hanging over the chambers, they failed to promote legislation that would have preserved individual freedoms and limit action by government executives to restrict those liberties.

And then there's the whiff the impeachment committee, dominated by Republicans, took earlier this year. One committee member basically admitted that Beshear had committed impeachable offenses, but they didn't think it appropriate to remove him from office since he was put there through the will of the electorate.

Is it any wonder that the grassroots activists and voters want to pull their hair out when the party leaders acquiesce to liberals and don't stand strong?

It's definitely not a Kentucky phenomenon. RINOs are running rampant at the national level, and COINs are plentiful. From Rep. Liz Cheney to noted and once-respected pundit Bill Kristol to the frauds at the Lincoln Project, there's a significant wing of the GOP who would rather side with liberals than stand true to their values and principles.

When we finally get Republicans with a backbone who will stand up to the left, these pretend conservatives undercut them at every opportunity. Matt Bevin had already angered the Kentucky establishment when he dared to challenge McConnell in the 2014 Senate race, so he had to battle opposition from within the party as well as the Democrats during his term as governor. And we're all painfully aware of how Donald Trump, the consummate outsider, was treated by the GOP bigwigs because he pushed back against the status quo and the "go along to get along" mentality.

It's hard for the party's base to make the claim that the GOP stands for certain things when the party's leaders and elected officials act differently. Can we legitimately claim we're against higher taxes when our legislature raises them? How can we say we support individual freedoms when influential voices advocate forced vaccinations?

There's a severe disconnect between the party's rank and file voters, and those who are in elected positions or within the party's hierarchy. At some point, this is going to cause problems. The Democrats are horribly bad, but in too many cases, Republicans aren't much better. It doesn't give the grassroots activists the warm fuzzies to see folks like Tres Watson pushing positions that would seem more at home coming out of Andy Beshear's mouth. Indeed, Beshear has been so focused on playing politics while claiming he's not playing politics, that let's hope he doesn't get any bad ideas from a Republican Party mouthpiece like Watson.

The Mitch McConnell Building that houses the RPK headquarters in downtown Frankfort should be designated as a RINO sanctuary and a COIN museum.

And they're off: Harmon's entry into 2023 gubernatorial race is just the beginning

The announcement that Mike Harmon plans to run for Kentucky governor in 2023 wasn't really a surprise, but the timing caught most Bluegrass political observers off-guard.

Harmon, who's in his second term as state auditor and cannot run again due to Kentucky's term limits on statewide offices, had been widely mentioned as a potential gubernatorial candidate. But no one anticipated him being the first to announce his candidacy, which was done via a press release instead of a live event.

The low-key nature of Harmon's declaration is in keeping with his performance as auditor. He hasn't been a headline-grabber. He's brought a quiet, methodical approach to his duties, seizing on a slogan of "Follow the Data" as his office goes about its mandated functions.

As of this writing, his early announcement hasn't moved any of the other possible or rumored candidates to publicly say they're in the running for the Republican nomination to try to unseat Andy Beshear in two years. Whether his official announcement will be of any benefit to him, or possibly ward off other potential challengers, remains to be seen. He's already picked up some early public support from some voters who probably would have looked at other alternatives if he wasn't running.

The most frequently mentioned possible candidates include former Gov. Matt Bevin, current Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles, Congressman Jamie Comer, and Kelly Knight Craft, former U.S. ambassador to Canada.

There are a number of other potential candidates, including Treasurer Allison Ball, who, like Harmon and Quarles, is term-limited from seeking re-election. Even Congressman Andy Barr, who once served as an aide to former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, has been mentioned in some news stories as considering joining the race. Somerset Mayor Alan Keck has expressed some interest in running. And without giving away any inside information, it can be accurately stated that state Rep. Savannah Maddox has heard the voices encouraging her to run.

Although we don't know exactly who all will be running for the GOP nomination in 2023, save for Harmon, it can safely be predicted that the ballot will be crowded and the race will be expensive. There's no clear front-runner among speculative candidates, although press coverage would give one the impression that Quarles occupies that spot.

This much is certain: Beshear is deeply unpopular among Kentucky Republicans for the way he's handled the Wuhan Chinese virus and a number of other related and unrelated issues. But how will that unpopularity affect the GOP electorate? There's a clear divide among establishment Republicans (the RINOs) and the conservative grassroots (the tea party and MAGA groups.)

Of the possible candidates, Craft would definitely be an establishment favorite. Many consider Quarles to fit in that category as well. Some place Comer in that group, too, and to a lesser extent, Barr.

On the conservative side? Bevin, Maddox, and Ball are definitely on that team.

As for Harmon (who was introduced as "Mark Harmon," the NCIS actor, by President Trump at the Rupp Arena 2019 election eve rally), it's hard to tell where he belongs. He's more or less avoided a lot of ideological statements or acts during his tenure as auditor. He certainly hasn't been as outspoken in his opposition to Beshear policies and orders as either Quarles or Ball.

The Kentucky GOP electorate is angry. They're upset with Beshear and his business- and job-killing restrictions. They're unhappy with the way the Republican establishment, led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Liz Cheney, have turned on Trump. Some of that anger will play out at the polls next year, when all of the state representatives and half of the state senate seats are up for election. Expect a number of incumbent Republicans to be primaried, especially if their politics have drifted to the left over the years. A perfect example is Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr, who's drawn a primary challenge from Lexington business owner and conservative activist Andrew Cooperrider.

Will establishment support carry a Quarles or a Craft to victory? Would a perception as McConnell's choice be a blessing or a curse? In past years, it was an asset. Now, not so much. A scant few years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a county party committee to issue a formal censure of the party's top statewide elected official with a position of national prominence. McConnell is said to be smarting over the defiance that was shown by several county GOP organizations. His support -- tacit or vocal -- of one of the Republican candidates might be the kiss of death for their chances.

Harmon, and the other candidates who come out for the race, will be running under a new set of rules. No longer will primary voters have to choose slates of candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Gubernatorial candidates will run solo in the primary, and the winner will choose their running mate after being nominated and before the general election.

It's a rule Dan Mongiardo probably wishes had been in place for the 2011 election. Mongiardo was elected lieutenant governor on a slate with Steve Beshear in 2007, but it was widely known that Mongiardo was eyeing the 2010 Senate race for a rematch with Jim Bunning. Beshear wanted to get an early start on fundraising for his re-election campaign, so he had to have a slate in place and he had no way of knowing if Mongiardo would still be lieutenant governor, or if he would be in the U.S. Senate, so he dropped Mongiardo from the ticket in favor of Jerry Abramson.

So, Harmon's formal filing makes him the first candidate to be able to raise funds for the 2023 campaign. It really hasn't garnered him a lot of "earned media" press coverage other than for his announcement. It's also gotten him some proclamations of support from some voters, but no early endorsements to speak of.

Harmon's a qualified candidate, and has done a credible job as auditor, but is he the person best suited to carry the fight to Andy Beshear in two years? Will he inspire the passion that some other candidates will? Can he stay in the race until May 2023, or as the field grows, will he find support lagging and have to pull out and endorse someone else?

We all expected a drama-filled Republican primary race, but this wasn't the first act we anticipated at all.

Charles Booker's fool's errand

Ever since former state Rep. Charles Booker of Louisville lost his bid last year to be the latest Democrat to try and fail to unseat Mitch McConnell from the United States Senate, he's teased a potential run against Rand Paul for the junior senator's seat next year.

Today, Booker looked reality in the eye and pretended it doesn't exist. In the political equivalent of driving a fully loaded coal truck across a bridge marked with a three-ton weight limit, Booker embarked on his fool's errand to try to defeat Paul. It's a contest he has no chance of winning. If he is the Democrats' nominee for the Senate race next year, his loss to Paul will make Amy McGrath's defeat at the hands of McConnell look like a razor-thin margin.

McConnell didn't cruise to victory over McGrath last year because he's popular in Kentucky. Most Republicans merely tolerate McConnell, and many despise him. He won because Donald Trump had long coattails, and because the electorate was suffering voter fatigue from McGrath. She had just come off a loss in a congressional race where her television ads were omnipresent in a large area of Kentucky, and people were sick of hearing about her. "How many missions did she fly?" was a question often derisively asked because McGrath had harped on her record as a fighter pilot during her campaign loss to Rep. Andy Barr.

On the other hand, Paul is immensely popular with Kentucky Republicans, and he's cemented that popularity over the last year and a half. He's been a consistent voice for freedom, and withering in his criticisms of Gov. Andy Beshear and Dr. Anthony Fauci for the way they've responded to the Wuhan Chinese virus outbreak. He's even earning the respect of conservatives who had previously been skeptical of some of his more liberal-leaning libertarian views. If you polled Kentucky Republicans to ask their favorite Bluegrass politician or official, Paul would win easily. McConnell, who routed McGrath last year to win re-election, would finish behind several obscure state representatives.

And that brings us to voting patterns and party registration numbers. When I was growing up, Democrats had a lock on Kentucky politics. Republicans would occasionally win a Senate race, but they were a distinct statewide minority. Democrats held an advantage in registered voters of more than 2:1. Republicans outnumbered them only in the "old 5th" congressional district of south-central Kentucky.

Slowly but surely, voting numbers changed. McConnell defeated incumbent Dee Huddleston in 1984. Bill Clinton won Kentucky twice, but Al Gore from neighboring Tennessee did not. Republicans took Wendell Ford's old Senate seat when he retired. After a 32-year drought, a GOP governor was elected in 2003, along with two other statewide officials. The trend has continued over the past 18 years, with Republicans picking up a majority of the state's congressional seats and winning supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly despite those districts having been drawn by Democrats to provide their candidates advantages.

The state has trended more conservative in election results and attitudes, and voter registration numbers are finally catching up. The state Republican Party tracks the statistics, and they're mind-boggling. Since Barack Obama took office in 2009, Democrats have hemorrhaged registered voters while the GOP has racked up incredible gains. Not only are voters switching parties, but new voters are registering as Republicans. Trump's election brought a surge of new voters to the Republicans, as did Beshear's election.

That 2:1 advantage the Democrats held in my youth is gone. Republicans are now within two percentage points of taking the lead in registered voters. It's entirely possible that by the 2024 presidential election, the Republicans will have a majority of party registrations and Kentucy will truly become a red state. The numbers don't lie, and here they are:

So, this is the political environment into which Charles Booker enters. At a time when Kentucky is moving more to the right, the most liberal politician in the state thinks he can unseat a conservative hero. There's even talk that Booker is too liberal for Kentucky Democrats. So far, he's drawn no credible opposition. Ruth Gao, an unknown from Louisville, declared her candidacy first, but she is an unknown and doesn't have Booker's advantages of having used his run against McGrath last year to develop a statewide following. No other Democrats are even being mentioned as possible candidates.

If Booker wants to be realistic about his political future, a more appropriate race for him would be mayor of Louisville. His radical liberal politics are more in line with Jefferson County, and a significant portion of the electorate there, than they are the rest of the state. Booker's race-baiting, which he's doubled down on the past year, coupled with many of his extreme liberal policies, simply won't play in rural and small-town Kentucky except with the small pockets of ultra-leftists that are present in even the most conservative places.

Despite his unpopularity, McConnell embarrassed McGrath last year. Despite the left's wet dreams that Booker would have fared better, the truth is McConnell would have beaten him worse than he did McGrath. His defeat at the hands of Paul will be legendary.

Democrats really have no chance of unseating Paul next year. The incumbent has already been endorsed by Trump, who remains extremely popular in the Bluegrass State. Party leaders would be well-served to try to find a candidate who will fare better than Booker so at least they will be able to maintain some small amount of pride; to try to keep the margin of defeat respectable.

Trump investigations set a dangerous precedent. Do liberals really want to blaze this trail?

Conservatives despised Barack Obama. Liberals detested George W. Bush. Similarly, the right villainized Bill Clinton and the left demonized Ronald Reagan. (Poor George H. W. Bush was so lukewarm that he didn't really generate hard feelings among anyone).

But all of those former presidents had something in common. Once they left office, they were pretty much left alone. They and their families were free to live their lives as peacefully as is possible for ex-presidents and their kinfolks.

That certainly isn't the case with Donald Trump. He hasn't been able to enjoy his post-presidency pursuits. His detractors have come after him with all sorts of investigations. And since Trump is neither a liberal Democrat nor an establishment swamp-dwelling Republican, he's angered both sides.

On everything from his company's employment benefits to outrageous allegations that he orchestrated a riot through the mere act of giving a political speech, he hasn't seen a minute's peace since leaving office. He's been unable to pursue his interests, be they running his corporation to campaigning for his preferred candidates, without having to deal with speculation about what legal troubles might be coming his way.

Democrats are like rats smelling cheese. They can't contain themselves at the thoughts of investigating Trump, putting him and his organization and his children on trial, and taking their revenge on him. But they really need to ask themselves if this is a precedent they want to set. It could come back to bite them.

There's a fervor in Congress now surrounding proposals for the Senate to end the filibuster. Only a handful of long-term thinkers on that side of the aisle are urging Democrats to proceed with caution. If Republicans take back control of both chambers next year, which is very likely, do they want to have established that protocol to allow the GOP to ram through any legislation it wants with simple majority votes? Sure, they will still have the presidency for two more years and legislation can be vetoed, but other acts -- such as launching investigations, holding hearings, etc. -- wouldn't be subject to a veto.

But, there are more ramifications to consider. Republicans are notorious for staying above the fray in political disputes and not stooping to the left's tactics. Maybe, finally, they will have had enough and will use liberals' precedents against them.

When the GOP takes back control of Congress, there can be all sorts of hearings about various misdeeds within the Biden administration. Republicans might even find the courage to impeach Biden for something; possibly even over his actions in compelling the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor when he was vice president. And by January 2023, when the next Congress takes office, Joe Biden will have an entire litany of screwups from which to choose. After all, the Democrats impeached Trump twice on absolutely ridiculous terms and for totally flimsy reasons.

And when the Republicans regain the White House, perhaps the Justice Department can launch a proper investigation into Hunter Biden and his questionable business activities.

(Speaking of Biden's wayward son, a lot of liberals on Twitter -- including blue-checks who should know better -- continue to post speculation that Donald Trump Jr. is a cocaine user without any proof or credible allegations. Who was it who was photographed with a crack pipe? Oh, wait, it was Hunter Biden.)

It's a feel-good point for conservatives to say they aren't willing to engage in activities that they think are beneath them, but when their enemies are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their grievance efforts, it's time for us to take off the gloves. If the left is going to set the rules, it's time the right play by those rules. Just doing that infuriates liberals. After all, they told us in 1992 and again in 1996 that sexual misbehavior in a presidential candidate is not a disqualifying factor, but they forgot in 2016 when the less-than-pure Trump was running.

So, if the Democrats succeed in doing away with the Senate's filibuster rule, they will have no room to moan and cry if the Republicans ram through legislation the next time they're in control of Congress. And if liberals insist on investigating and pursuing criminal charges against Trump and his relatives and associates, they'll just have to sit silently when it happens to Biden.

This is the world liberals want to create. It's only fair that they be forced to live in it too.

From virtue signal to scarlet letter: The evolution of masks' symbolism

As a writer by trade and training, and as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I'm hesitant to ever recommend the banishment of a word or phrase from the language. But there's one phrase I wouldn't mind to see disappear from the lexicon and never be used again: Virtue signaling.

It's not the concept -- the outward expression of values or principles -- to which I object. Indeed, I think that's something we should all strive to do. We should always demonstrate our closely-held beliefs and those standards in which we believe through our words and deeds. "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words," is a quote often attributed (erroneously, some say) to St. Francis of Assisi. But the phrase "virtue signaling" itself has taken on a negative connotation, and those on both the right and the left use it derisively.

Last week, when federal guidelines on mask-wearing in public changed, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear announced more rollbacks in the Wuhan Chinese virus restrictions as a result, it led some to ponder just how those on the left could demonstrate their moral superiority now that masks would no longer be required in most settings.  Since the mask-backers had long said they were wearing masks to protect others and show how much they care about the public's health, what would they do after this tool was taken away from them?

Then, the illegitimate president, Dementia Joe Biden, tweeted that people basically have two choices. "Either take the Wu-Flu vaccine, or wear a mask. The choice is yours" was the essence of the statement.

And suddenly, it became clear. No longer would masks become a symbol for those who care about others. Instead, they would be a mark of shame for people who don't care enough about society to take the shot. A mask doesn't mean, "I care." As of late last week, it means, "I don't care."

Last Saturday, I went to a grocery store. For the first time since last summer, the majority of shoppers weren't wearing masks. There were three or four customers who were still masked, and the checkout clerks were wearing masks, but most customers were maskless. It felt good. It felt free. It felt right. It felt normal.

There has been a spectrum of reaction to the announcement that fully vaccinated people -- and for the record, I identify as vaccinated -- don't have to wear masks in most public settings anymore. Many have said "It's about time." Others say they will continue to wear masks despite the lack of a requirement. But the oddest response came from Rachel Maddow, who proved herself worthy of her "Madcow" nickname. She said it would take her a while to deprogram herself from seeing unmasked people as threats.

Seriously? I never viewed any unmasked person I encountered in a store as a threat. If anything, I respected their desire to be civilly disobedient. Going maskless in the dollar store is certainly less harmful and disruptive to society than blocking traffic, destroying monuments and statues, looting, and rioting. The misguided idea that everyone has COVID and every unmasked person is spreading COVID is absolutely ridiculous, but people like Maddow bought into it. The amount of fear that the government and its partners in the press have spread over the last 15 months is shameful. Hopefully, if nothing else, we as a society have learned never to repeat so many of the mistakes that have been made in the overreaction to this situation.

In all honestly, it was refreshing to see so many people without masks at the store. More major retailers are dropping their mask requirements each day, and hopefully most if not all businesses will follow suit. People are still free to wear masks if they feel the masks offer them protection, or if they feel like they have something from which they need to protect others, but they're no longer a symbol of self-superiority. Mask advocates can drop their pretentiousness, as we are hopefully on track to a return to the way life was in January of 2020, when people lived normally without fear and panic dominating their lives.

They still just don't get it

As the left and the RINO Republicans -- that means you, Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Lincoln Project frauds, among others -- continue to melt down over the removal of Liz Cheney from her leadership position, they keep on demonstrating that they simply don't understand the amount of frustration American conservatives have with the political process.

"Party of Trump" and "Trump cult" are two phrases that are being thrown around by the same loud leftist social media voices that can always be counted on to get it wrong. And unsurprisingly, they're getting this wrong as well.

What they don't realize is that conservatives have years of pent-up anger and dissatisfaction with the establishment leaders of the Republican Party who haven't yet had a principle they wouldn't toss aside in order to try to get along with the Democrats, who are never going to approve of the GOP or its policies.

John McCain tried it, and all it got him was some bipartisan praise when he died. Mitt Romney seems more interested in getting liberals to say nice things about him than in standing for the ideals of the party he represents, and bore its standard in the 2012 presidential election.

If it hadn't been Donald Trump leading the charge against liberals and establishment Republicans, then it would have been someone else. Trump just happened to be the candidate to was able to harness the outrage. (Myself, I would have preferred Ted Cruz, but was not disappointed in the least with the way Trump governed.)

Grassroots voters are hungry for someone who will stand up to the left. They thirst for a leader who will make Republicans live up to the ideals they profess to hold. They crave officials who will put American interests and the American people above foreign governments and citizens. They lust for executives who are less concerned with precedent and tradition and more worried about results. And that was Trump's appeal. His candidacy offered those promises. Trump wasn't interested in caving in to the left. He wanted to defeat their policies. And he didn't feel obliged to do things the way they'd always been done in political campaigns.

It's fitting that the last two serious candidates left in the 2016 GOP nomination were Trump and Cruz, the two most unconventional contestants in the race. Establishment favorites like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie had fallen by the wayside as Republican primary voters and caucus-goers rejected the old way of doing things. The party of Reagan had strayed far from its moorings before the tea party movement took the GOP by storm in response to the Barack Obama presidency, and then the populist surge led by Trump won the nomination and eventually the presidency.

Today's GOP isn't "the party of Trump." It's the party of "we're tired of business as usual, we're tired of losing to Democrats, we're tired of liberal policies ruining this nation, and we don't care if we hurt a few feelings or step on a few establishment toes to score some policy victories so we can fix this nation." It just so happened that Trump was the recipient of the votes from the disaffected electorate. If the results of the nomination process had been different, it could have been "the party of Cruz" or "the party of Rand Paul" or "the party of Marco Rubio."

Liz Cheney wasn't ousted because she wouldn't side with Trump. She was exorcised because she sided with liberals who are opposed to the things for which she says she stands. Like many of Trump's GOP detractors, she has put personality above policy. She'd rather go to battle alongside people who stand against her ideology than to stand with someone who shares her policy positions.

But the left and the liberals in the Republican establishment will continue to get it wrong. They'll keep on confusing loyalty to one man with the disdain for a political society that pushes aside American autonomy for global interests, and would rather acquiesce to liberal desires than stand strong on their beliefs. They underestimate us at their peril.

No Gov. Trump in 2023 after all -- Kentucky's residency requirements stand in the way

Some eyebrows were raised a couple of weeks ago when the name of Donald Trump, Jr., came up in discussions about who might be running for Kentucky governor in 2023.

One of the key combatants in the various legal battles against Gov. Andy Beshear and the state's executive orders regarding the Wuhan Chinese virus mentioned in an online discussion that he'd heard Trump's name brought up as a possible candidate. This person has his finger squarely on the pulse of Kentucky politics, and he'd be in a position to know the names of the players, the contenders, and the pretenders.

But there is absolutely no chance that the namesake son of the 45th president will be governor of Kentucky in two years. And unless Trump establishes residency in Kentucky by the end of this year, he can categorically be ruled out as a candidate in 2027.

Kentucky's constitution requires someone to be a resident of the state for six years before becoming eligible to run for or serve as governor. That means anyone planning on running in two years needed to be living here by 2017, thereby ruling Trump out.

This has to be a relief to any Republicans who were considering the race to be nominated to oppose Beshear. Trump would have brought money and a vast wealth of name recognition to the race, and judging from the amount of enthusiasm the mention of his name as a potential candidate generated, he would automatically have had the support of a majority of those who supported his father's presidential runs in 2016 and 2020.

So, where does that leave us when pondering the possible field of candidates? Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles seems to be getting the most attention as a potential candidate, even as criticism mounts against him as an establishment candidate. There's still considerable speculation that Kelly Craft will run, and talk of her possible candidacy became louder when she recently accompanied Congressman Hal Rogers on a tour of flood-ravaged communities in eastern Kentucky. Former Gov. Matt Bevin seems to be leaning toward another run, and he'd be a formidable foe because of the money he could bring to the race, plus the fact that he already has a statewide network in place from his previous term as governor. The "Draft Savannah Maddox" movement continues to gain steam, and it doesn't take a genius to suspect that she has to be paying them at least a modicum of attention. Some are mentioning Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams as possible candidates, but they've given no indication they're interested in the race. And Congressman Jamie Comer continues to be the X-factor in the race. He really hasn't signaled an interest in running, but he hasn't ruled it out, either.

Meanwhile, on the other side, there's a bit of possible intrigue. There are some loud voices on the left who are encouraging Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman to mount a run against her boss. They point to the way she and her staff have handled Kentucky's unemployment fiasco and compare it to Beshear's treatment of the matter, and they use that to surmise that she'd be a better governor than he is. This isn't likely to happen, as no Democrat governor who's been eligible to succeed himself (Paul Patton and Steve Beshear) has faced credible, legitimate opposition for renomination in the primary. Unless...

An even more interesting rumor making the rounds is that Beshear is considering dropping Coleman from his re-election ticket in favor of Rocky Adkins, the former legislative leader who now serves as one of the governor's senior advisers. It's not clear from where this speculation  is originating, but there's been no media coverage of it. Keep in mind, though, that it was rumored for months that Bevin would boot Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton from his slate with no replacement mentioned before Sen. Ralph Alvarado's name finally surfaced. Perhaps some inquisitive media sleuth should get Beshear on the record about this rumor. If Beshear did replace Coleman on his ticket, might she run against him as revenge?

Although some note has been paid to next year's U.S. senate race, when Rand Paul stands for re-election and is expected to face a challenge from former state Rep. Charles Booker, the 2023 governor's race continues to be the main political attention-grabber in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The ongoing virus situation and the current governor's handling (or, if you ask many mishandling) of the matter continues to gain and hold the public's concern. State politics are infinitely more intriguing than are national politics, especially since there are more favors to be doled out on the state executive level than there are at the federal legislative level. So even as Paul continues to be a lightning rod for national attention due to his continuing scrutiny of Dr. Anthony Fauci, state political observers are going to be looking past next year to 2023.

The race will definitely be less interesting without the possibility of Donald Trump, Jr., in it, but it's still going to be a crowded and expensive GOP primary. There will be clear choices between establishment RINOs and conservative champions, with the possibility of several from each category in the race. It will be a spirited sprint to the nomination, but there will be races within the races. Will the establishment go for Quarles or Craft? Will the conservatives support Bevin or Maddox? Will someone surprise everyone the way Bevin did against Comer and Hal Heiner in 2015?

And keep an eye out for 2027 should Don Jr. move to the Bluegrass State this year.

Press again shows its bias, favoritism in coverage of Beshear-related incidents

On a day ironically promoted by the Washington Post as "World Press Freedom Day," Kentucky's leading media outlets have once again proven why they aren't worthy of the constitutional liberties they're granted, and why all those who criticize them as biased and "fake news" have valid points.

Both incidents involved newspapers and television stations, and the leading personalities who run social media accounts linked to their employers, failing to report or acknowledge two weekend events involving Gov. Andy Beshear, especially when compared to their past behavior in similar instances.

At the last Kentucky Derby that was open to the public, in 2019, Matt Bevin was governor and was involved in a re-election campaign. He was booed during his remarks as he presented the trophy to the Derby winner. Media outlets lapped that up, breathlessly tweeting about it from Churchill Downs and filing numerous reports that made their way onto broadcasts and into print.

Last year's Derby was delayed several months and not attended by crowds, but a limited number of spectators were present for this year's running this past Saturday. When Beshear appeared to present the trophy, he was met by a chorus of boos and jeers. Yet the press failed to report that and the reporters failed to tweet about it. Unless you follow various of the anti-Beshear activist accounts on social media, you wouldn't know it happened.

Now, why would the press hide the fact that Beshear got booed and not report it as gleefully as they did when it happened to Bevin? Surely it wouldn't be because all these journalists are in the tank for Beshear and his agenda, would it?

But that incident on Saturday was just an indication of a much more frightening incidence of the media being in Beshear's pocket. The day after the Derby, another in a series of protests against the government mandates concerning the Wuhan Chinese virus was held in Frankfort, outside the Capitol and Governor's Mansion. This time, a number of Beshear fans announced their plans to hold a counterprotest to show support for the executive orders.

Rewind to Memorial Day weekend 2020, when a huge rally took place there. Someone set up a display of Beshear being hung in effigy, and the condemnation of the symbolism was fast and loud and lengthy. Keep in mind that no actual threats were made by the display, and effigies have been used as political speech for centuries. Anyone who supported any of the "reopen Kentucky" protests that took place at the time was cast as some sort of domestic terrorist, worthy only of condemnation.

Fast forward back to this weekend. The governor and his wife came out from the mansion to visit with some of their supporters. Among those with whom they talked, and posed for a picture, was a woman identified as Karen Clark Ellis. Photos of Ellis talking to the Beshears have been shared on social media, and Ellis herself shared the photo of her with the Beshears on her own Facebook page before she took her page down,  for reasons that will become apparent later.

Sometime after her meeting with the Beshears, Ellis pulled a knife on one of the anti-Andy protestors. There are photos and videos of this incident freely available for public consumption. Although this happened in front of police, no arrests were made, and the person on whom she pulled the knife is said to be seeking criminal charges through the Franklin County Attorney's office.

As for Karen Ellis, the rest of us are lucky that screenshots last forever. She bragged about her act on her Facebook page, only later to pull her social media presence back to the point that you can't even find her profile if you search for it. She probably got tired of hearing from people telling her what they thought about her actions.

With all the physical proof of the incident, and with all the social media play it got, doesn't it seem odd that as of this writing, no Kentucky media outlet has covered the story? Especially since so many reporters seem to base their news stories on social media postings and use tweets and Facebook posts as sources for information? And also especially since a symbolic gesture (a hanging in effigy) generated so much coverage while an actual physical threat goes ignored?

Journalists constantly wonder why members of the public don't trust them, consider them to be biased and unreliable, and call them "fake news." There are none so blind as those who will not see. Until they cover the Derby booing of Andy Beshear with the same fervor they used with Matt Bevin, and until they give the same weight to actions of Beshear supporters as they do Beshear opponents, they just simply will never get it.

Governor Trump? Kentucky's 2023 gubernatorial race is getting interesting

As early as that night in November of 2019 when Andy Beshear thwarted Matt Bevin's bid to win re-election as Kentucky's governor, speculation began on which Republicans might decide to run in four years to unseat Beshear, and which candidate might be the front-runner.

And that was before Beshear's bungling of the state's Wuhan Chinese virus response, the resulting unemployment fiasco, and all the other missteps his administration has made since he took office 17 months ago.

The three term-limited state Republican officials -- Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles, Auditor Mike Harmon, and Treasurer Allison Ball, have all used the duties of their offices to hold Beshear accountable and responsible for all the mistakes that have been made on his watch.

Quarles continues to be most frequently mentioned as a 2023 GOP candidate, and was declared the front-runner on KET on Election Night 2019. Harmon's name comes up more and more often in the speculation, but not much is said about Ball.

As for the other two statewide officeholders, Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams, they aren't frequently mentioned as possible candidates. Conventional wisdom still has it that Cameron has his eye on Mitch McConnell's Senate seat (as McConnell's handpicked successor), and Adams has alienated a number of Republicans over his acquiescence to Beshear's temporary election changes last year and the permanent changes passed by the General Assembly this year.

The other name that came up immediately after Bevin's loss to Beshear was that of U.S. Rep. Jamie Comer. Comer lost the 2015 GOP nomination to Bevin by a mere 83 votes and toyed with the idea of running against him in the 2019 primary. He has a set of loyal backers and is said to still be bitter over his 2015 loss despite having settled into a relatively safe congressional seat.

But as we get deeper into Beshear's four-year term, and as dissatisfaction grows with the slow pace of Kentucky's return to normalcy, the speculative list of possible challengers grows longer and more interesting.

The leading legislative opponent to Beshear's agenda has been Rep. Savannah Maddox. Early on as panic ensued last spring, she saw what was going on and knew it would get worse. She tried without success to get the General Assembly to curb Beshear's executive abuses as the abbreviated 2020 session wound down, and has continued to be his most vocal critic. There's been a growing contingent of people calling for her to run for governor, and "Draft Savannah Maddox" sites showed up on social media earlier this week. She enjoys the support of much of the anti-Beshear faction of the GOP and the leading voices for freedom and liberty.

The establishment wing of the party would probably fall in line behind Kelly Craft should she choose to run, as has been rumored. The former U.S. ambassador to Canada and the United Nations, and the wife of coal operator Joe Craft, is said to have an interest in the race. She recently showed up at some flood relief efforts in the upper Kentucky River valley, which raised a lot of eyebrows.

Brad Barron, who ran as a Libertarian against McConnell and Amy McGrath in the 2020 U.S. Senate race, is openly pondering a possible gubernatorial run as a Republican.  He's earned a lot of goodwill among Kentucky Republicans who have voiced "voter's remorse" at having chosen McConnell, only to see him turn against President Trump as his term wound down.

In a bit of a surprise, Bevin has been making some noise about running again. He has been mostly silent on issues the past year, and his social media presence has been mainly dedicated to promoting his son's fledgling auto racing career. But he recently made a public appearance with an eye on the political ramifications, according to Nick Storm's new Kentucky Fried Politics site, and has been actively discussing a run for his old seat.

Storm also reports that first-term Somerset Mayor Alan Keck is thinking about filing, but he'd be an also-ran and his candidacy would be inconsequential.

But it was in a social media discussion of another afterthought candidate that a bombshell was dropped.

An unknown named Johnny Rice is already promoting his own candidacy. As the crowded nature of the field was discussed on a post about Rice's qualifications, an attorney who is very active in and knowledgeable about politics (and is leading many of the legal battles against Beshear's executive edicts) stated that Donald Trump Jr. is thinking about moving to Kentucky and running for governor.

Yes, THAT Donald Trump Jr. Son of the 45th president and a popular surrogate for his father on the 2016 and 2020 campaign trails. His entry into the race would turn it on its head.

Don Jr. is no stranger to Kentucky. Even outside of campaign appearances for his dad, he's been a frequent visitor to the state. He made waves a few years ago when he was spotted dining at Applebee's in Hazard. He would, of course, have to establish residence here ahead of statutory deadlines. And there would be the inevitable "he's not a Kentucky native" outcry, most often uttered by critics of Bevin who conveniently forgot that former Go. Brereton Jones wasn't born in this state either.

Without a doubt, the GOP field will be crowded. The race will be expensive, especially if the wealthy Bevin and Craft enter. The presence of Trump would exponentially increase the costs. Beshear has given his prospective opponents plenty of ammunition and will continue to do so. The longer the Wuhan Chinese virus restrictions and the unemployment system woes linger, the weaker Beshear's re-election chances become. Republicans are already anxiously awaiting the race, and attention will only intensify as November 2023 approaches.

Since Rand Paul is in no real danger of losing his Senate seat next year, look for the focus on the gubernatorial race to get even sharper. And if Donald Trump Jr. buys a home in the Bluegrass State in the next few months, it's going to get very entertaining in a hurry.

Time to reform public pensions in Kentucky

The issue on which former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin was strongest is probably the issue that caused his loss in his 2019 re-election campaign.

Bevin constantly talked about how Kentucky's chronically underfunded public pension plans for government employees and public educators were a ticking time bomb in the state's financial well being. For years, the state failed to adequately fund pensions to meet their obligations. Not only did he stress the need to provide adequate funds, but he pointed out that the current system was unsustainable and needed to be reformed, as a dwindling number of current employees could not continue to keep the pensions of a growing number of retirees afloat.

One on one or in small groups, Bevin was meticulous and eloquent in explaining the situation. He noted how prior governors (dating back to Paul Patton) had failed to include full pension funding in their budgets they submitted to the legislature, and how the General Assembly had failed to add in adequate funding. He constantly stressed that government has a legal, financial, and moral obligation to pay retirees and current employees what they're owed. And he also pointed out that something is going to have to be done if future employees are to have a retirement plan.

The state manages several different pension systems, all with varying degrees of financial health. But there's a key difference between one of them -- the retirement system for teachers -- and the rest.

When Social Security was established, for whatever reason, the teachers retirement system declined to participate. Teachers don't pay into Social Security, and thus are unable to draw when they retire. And unless they have worked other jobs where they do pay into Social Security for a substantial period of time, they aren't entitled to draw. Even then, there are limitations on how much they're eligible for.

As previously noted, Bevin was great at explaining the pension situation on a small scale or individualized basis. But, facing a hostile press corps, his public statements on the matter were twisted and misinterpreted by reporters, and his remarks and proposals were savaged by teachers who didn't understand the problem.

Most current state employees -- think those who drive snowplows, patch potholes, process unemployment claims, investigate child abuse, etc. -- will draw not only their defined benefit pension, but Social Security. Since teachers don't get Social Security, they're adamant about future hires not being moved from their current system to a 401(k)-like defined contribution plan the way newly-hired state workers were a few years ago.

Word has it that when a pension reform plan was being formulated a few years ago, it would have moved future teachers into the same type of system as now exists for the new tier of state workers. Teachers would have become eligible for Social Security, and their state pension plan would be a defined contribution plan. But for whatever reason, that proposal was rejected by the Kentucky Education Association.

Since then, Kentucky may have changed governors, but Republicans have strengthened their hold on the legislature. They passed a pension reform bill two years ago, but it was overturned on a legal technicality, not on the merits of the bill itself. The General Assembly hoped to readdress the matter last year, but the session was cut short by the emergence of the Wuhan Chinese virus and legislation ground to a halt.

Now, when the legislature comes back into session in February, they're said to be again looking at pension reform. Bevin's not around to be the villain anymore, and the legislature can definitely override any veto Gov. Andy Beshear may issue. This may be the best time to enact real, meaningful reform that preserves and protects the existing system while ensuring stability and availability for all future employees.

At a minimum, here's what needs to happen.

• Fully fund the existing systems for current employees and retirees. Under Bevin, pensions were fully funded by the state for the first time in years. The state must continue to provide the actuarially-required contribution to keep the funds solvent, especially since the various pension funds' investments may not survive a stock market crash.
• Fund those systems using existing revenue streams. Various education groups, including KEA and "120 Wrong," like to shout, "Find Funding First!" In other words, they're advocating for tax increases to fund the pensions. But taxpayers balk, and rightly so, when their tax dollars go to provide retirements for others that are better than their own retirement plans are or will be. If you're going to have to get by on Social Security or what you've managed to save, why would you want to prop up someone else's retirement plan? In addition, the economy is fragile enough now as it is due to the goverment's response to the virus. People are out of work and businesses are closing. They certainly can't afford tax increases, especially when that money will go directly into the pockets of those who really haven't been impacted by the government-ordered closures or limitations.
• Move future teachers into a Social Security plan. There is no reason not to do this. And it would prove beneficial to them if they come from, or move to, jobs where they do pay into Social Security. It makes no sense for teachers to be treated differently than social workers -- or, for that matter, teachers and other certified school staff and the classified employees, such as janitors, cooks, and bus drivers, who participate in the County Employees Retirement System (an offshoot of the state employees system) and thus pay into and draw Social Security. If this is done, then future hires can be enrolled in a defined contribution plan since they'll have Social Security as a backup, just as newly hired state employees do.
  
• Increase the retirement age and/or years of service requirement for eligibility to draw full retirement benefits. The current levels are ridiculously low. As of now, a state employee or teacher can retire after 27 years of service with full benefits. That means, if you start work when you're 23 years old, you can work 27 years and retire when you're 50. If you live until you're 80, you'll have drawn benefits longer than you worked. This contributes greatly to the system's unsustainability. And there are a large number of employees who work that minimum, or buy time and work even less, and then retire with full benefits and go to work in the private sector, often making more money than they did on the public payroll. Requiring 30 years of service before retirement is entirely reasonable. A 35-year requirement is even more so. Requiring that same 23-year-old to work 35 years means they'd retire at 58, which is still a lot younger than the retirement age for many private-sector employees.

It will be interesting to see how any reform efforts play out in this legislative session. It's a short 30-day session, and the General Assembly has to tackle a one-year budget because last year's biennial session got cut short. There are a number of other matters that need addressing, and the body may have to take up impeachment of the governor after a citizens' petition was filed. And they will have to get all this done quickly enough to leave time to come back to override any gubernatorial vetoes that may be issued.

But pension changes need to come sooner, rather than later. Politicians kicked that can down the road far too many times. Bevin was prescient on the issue, but his inability to get the point across to the general populace just delayed what must be inevitable. If Bevin had enjoyed the chance to make the case for reform on a smaller scale, without the hostility from the press and those who willfully misrepresented his goals, it could have been done by now. But the opportunity is now before the legislature, and they need to take advantage of that chance before any more damage is done.