Hazard High School incident highlights left's hypocrisy

Debates are raging across the country over educational policy. On matters as diverse as restroom usage, participation on sports teams, curriculum, and Wuhan Chinese virus mitigation efforts, the discussion covers not only how to address these subjects, but who's qualified and entitled to make decisions.

Earlier this week, it was even posited in a Washington Post opinion piece that parents do not have the right to have a say in how their children are taught. The paper then doubled down with an editorial comparing activist parents using their rightful powers as voters and taxpayers to bullies. The issue has become a major factor in the Virginia gubernatorial race, where Democrat Terry McAuliffe says that parents shouldn't dictate school policy, with Republican Glenn Youngkin taking the opposite viewpoint.

Liberals are horrified that parents, taxpayers, and voters are taking greater interest in school board meetings and are speaking out against policies they oppose and in favor of policies they support. The left fears an influx of new school board members, elected by the public, that may reverse years of decisions made by the "educrats" with which they disagree.  The idea of the people who actually fund the schools through their tax dollars and elect the board members who make policy having a say in how schools are run terrifies them.

That's what makes the reaction to this week's news out of Hazard, Ky., even more astonishing. The same liberals who see nothing wrong with biological males using girls' restrooms and playing on girls' sports teams are outraged over a risqué homecoming assembly at Hazard High School.

The story has made national headlines. A student assembly at the southeastern Kentucky school included male athletes dressed in drag and giving simulated lap dances to coaches and other personnel, females wearing Hooters attire pretending to be waitresses, and other activities and apparel one generally wouldn't associate with an in-school activity.

Condemnation has come from across the state and from all sides of the political spectrum, but some of the loudest criticism has come from the Lexington and Louisville liberals who see nothing wrong with a male who pretends to be a female merely by "identifying" as one using the girls' bathroom or competing against girls in scholastic sports. Ask a certain parent in Loudoun County, Va., just how well those "inclusive" bathrooms work.

They're OK with letting boys and girls use the restroom or the locker room together, but an over-the-top school spirit skit offends them and they demand heads to roll? Doesn't that not only seem hypocritical, but illogical?

Most of the criticism has been levied at the school's longtime principal, Donald "Happy" Mobelini, who is also the city's mayor. He's a popular figure in the community that serves as a regional commercial and medical hub for a large portion of the southeastern Kentucky mountains. But the small city school district's superintendent has also come under fire, for a quick investigation into the incident that ended with the announcement of undisclosed discipline against unnamed individuals. She cited personnel privacy concerns for her veiled public statement. However, state education officials are also looking into the matter, and decisions such as revocation of an educator's professional certification are not private.

Some in the community have defended the homecoming assembly, or at least not outright condemned it, but anger and disgust have been voiced from people of all political persuasions. Kentucky's liberal governor and lieutenant governor have stated they're displeased with this, as have some of the state's most conservative legislators and political observers.

It's not surprising that conservatives who oppose transgender bathroom policies are also upset with the Hazard homecoming event. Indeed, it can be argued that drag beauty pageants, simulated adult entertainment scenarios, and a representation of serving alcohol are not appropriate for school activities in any setting. But most of the students categorize it as just good harmless fun. Can the same be said about letting individuals with penises use the girls' bathroom? Both are legitimate issues and are ones that parents who send their kids to schools, voters who elect school board members to represent them, and taxpayers who fund public schools have every right to speak out about.

If it's OK for liberals in big-city Kentucky to complain about this, why should it be compared to domestic terrorism for rural conservatives to speak out against teaching a warped view of racial history or their kids being made to wear masks in school? If parents and members of the public are to have a say in one area of school activities, shouldn't they have a voice in all educational decisions?

It is fascinating to watch the various reactions to this situation from people who couldn't find Hazard or Perry County on a map, get it confused with the fictional Hazzard County, Ga., of "Dukes of Hazzard" television fame, and know nothing about the area's cultural and political history.  Those who have no clue about the region are the first to jump to conclusions in online comment sections.

But the overall point remains: If people miles away from Hazard can have strong opinions about what happened there and call for a response, why can't people express their thoughts and demand action on things affecting their own children and occurring in their own communities?

There's a growing nationwide wave of people who are tired of "of the people, by the people, and for the people" having become "of the government, by the government, and for the government." They're sick of dealing with an unresponsive bureaucracy that ignores their concerns. They're motivated to become activists and run for office to shake up the system. The idea of a true citizen government terrifies the entrenched interests worse than any Halloween horror film. And it all starts with public involvement.

Liberals just shouldn't be surprised when they complain about citizen activism in education and then get called out for their double standards when they lose their minds over what happened in Hazard.

Republicans' courtship of Democrats' approval never ends well

For political observers, the events of the day always provide an opportunity to learn a new lesson, or to reinforce an old one. Nearly every headline provides a teachable moment, but all too often, those who would benefit most from the learning experience never take it to heart.

The death of Gen. Colin Powell offers yet another chance for Republicans to learn why they always end up heartbroken when they try to court the support and approval of liberal Democrats. Those attempts never end well. Their advances are rejected and they never succeed in winning over the other side. And when the opportunity presents itself, the left will viciously turn on those who have acquiesced to them and patronized them.

There are a number of parallels between Powell and John McCain. That's why Powell's betrayal of McCain in the 2008 presidential race was especially ironic.

McCain tried to stake his political legacy on his "maverick" reputation. He often took great delight in opposing the policies and principles of the Republican Party. He became the quintessential RINO. He refused to run a hard-hitting campaign against Barack Obama, appeared far too deferential to him during and after the 2008 race, and maintained that posture in his final days as a United States senator, casting a decisive vote against the repeal of Obamacare in an act of defiance to conservatives.

One would think that McCain's positions would have been right up Powell's alley. Frequently mentioned as a wished-for GOP presidential candidate, Powell never entered the political arena after his service as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later as secretary of state. He initially supported McCain's 2008 presidential run, but then pulled one of the most amazing about-faces in American presidential political history.

Powell chose pigmentation over policy, and threw his backing behind Obama, snubbing McCain. The change in direction from the man who had served for a time as Ronald Reagan's national security adviser didn't go over well with Republicans who had been supportive of Powell and his career. Some even took to calling him "Colon" Powell in response to his betrayal of his principles.

What usually happens when Republicans court the affection of Democrats is that they not only fail to win the liberals over, but they lose the love from their own side. It certainly happened to McCain. He never succeeded in winning over the left, and he became a pariah among the base of the Republican Party. He'll be a poster child for RINOs for years to come. Even in death, he didn't get the warm fuzzies from the Democrats that he'd spent much of his political career chasing.

The same thing happened to Powell. Within a few hours of his death, before the ever-changing news cycle had gotten a chance to move on to the next headline, the term "war criminal" was trending on Twitter. The liberals, whose approval Powell had sought for many years, were turning on him due to his support for the Iraq war in 2002. Even in death, he couldn't get the bipartisan approval he craved.

It's a lesson from which Republicans should take heed. We're seeing it play out on national and regional stages every day. Members of Congress such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are playing to the liberals by siding with them in their battles against Donald Trump. But it's still common to see leftists complain about their voting records, while at the same time the faux Republicans have torpedoed the grassroots support from their own party. Illinois Democrats were so grateful for Kinzinger's anti-Trump support that they have attempted to gerrymander him out of his House seat for next year's elections.

This scenario is ongoing in Kentucky politics, as well. Secretary of State Michael Adams is often criticized by Republicans for capitulating to Gov. Andy Beshear on temporary voting procedure changes that were implemented last year, some of which were made permanent. Yet some liberals are also on his case over some of the steps taken to combat fraud and ensure election integrity. By playing to both sides, he's made enemies of both. No wonder he's mulling a race for Kentucky's vacant 3rd District congressional seat next year, especially now that state Sen. Julie Raque Adams has indicated she doesn't plan to run.

Legislative leaders in the GOP-dominated Kentucky General Assembly have drawn the ire of the left for standing against many of Beshear's executive mandates regarding the Wuhan Chinese virus, but the GOP rank and file are angry with them for not fighting back hard enough. They see the recent special session as a lost opportunity to enact reforms such as making employers liable for workers compensation claims as a result of vaccination requirements, or prohibiting forced vaccination in order to get or keep a job or otherwise participate in society.

Donald Trump weighed in on Powell's death on  Tuesday in his typical outspoken way. Trump haters immediately pounced on Trump's language, but nothing he said was untrue. It could have been phrased a bit more diplomatically, but the substance of Trump's observation was correct. Powell was a RINO who failed miserably when he coddled liberals.

Powell's passing is noted here. It is not celebrated as some did before his family had an opportunity to make funeral arrangements, but neither is it mourned. But the lesson in how his death has been noted is something that conservatives and Republicans should take to heart when they cast their lots with the left and seek their devotion and approval, and abandon their core principles in search of acceptance.

That didn't take long. Intrigue builds over race to replace Yarmuth

As could have been predicted, the announcement that John Yarmuth is not seeking re-election to Congress has touched off a lot of speculation and maneuvering as potential replacements mull a political campaign.

So far, a couple of state legislators have jumped into the fray. Rep. Attica Scott had already filed to challenge Yarmuth, and shortly after the retirement announcement went public, Sen. Morgan McGarvey made his intent to run known.

McGarvey must have known this was coming. He's already released a list of endorsements from several prominent Democrats. What's interesting about that is it includes some of Scott's colleagues in the House of Representatives. It also includes Sens. Reggie Thomas of Lexington and Gerald Neal of Louisville, both of whom share pigmentation with Scott, as does David James, president of Louisville's Metro Council and a former deputy attorney general under Greg Stumbo.

But although it seems that McGarvey knew in advance of Yarmuth's retirement, because he already had a fundraising mechanism in place, Yarmuth has stated that he has no plans to endorse a successor -- with one exception. His son, Aaron, publisher of the alternative Louisville Eccentric Observer (LEO) Weekly newspaper, has indicated he might jump in the race to succeed his father. The elder Yarmuth said he would support his son should he choose to run.

There may be other Democrats interested in running, and there are even a few who are encouraging former state Rep. Charles Booker to give up his destined-to-be-futile effort to unseat U. S. Sen. Rand Paul and go for the congressional seat instead.

A race between Booker and Scott would be fascinating, to say the least. Watching the two of them try to out-black the other could be downright hilarious, as both see themselves as champions of an oppressed minority.

And what of the Republicans? Although the 3rd District is extremely liberal, Republicans think they might have a shot at recapturing a seat the GOP hasn't held since 2007. There seems to be a concerted effort by the establishment to coax state Sen. Julie Raque Adams into the race. But unlike McGarvey, she'll have to choose between running to keep her state Senate seat or running for Congress, as her district is up for re-election next year.

An interesting twist to the potential GOP race came when Secretary of State Michael Adams said he would support Julie Adams, to whom he is not related, should she run. But if she doesn't run, he might consider the race himself. Adams may sense that he's in danger of being primaried if he runs for re-election for his current job in 2023, as he's unpopular with the base of the party for his capitulation to Gov. Andy Beshear on 2020 election changes due to the Wuhan Chinese virus, and the adoption of some of those procedures permanently.

Speaking of the base, the establishment within the Republican Party of Kentucky is already sending warning flares to the electorate, admonishing voters not to choose a conservative nominee. Tres Watson, former RPK communications director who's staked out a number of RINO positions in recent months, came right out and tweeted so. "The base needs to ask themselves: What's more important, ideological purity or 'Minority Leader Pelosi?' Nominate a candidate who can win KY-3, not one who's going (sic) headline CPAC."

The disdain for the grassroots is obvious. It must really pain the RPK leaders to have to issue statements of support for rank-and-file favorites like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Savannah Maddox, and others who aren't go-along-to-get-along types.

But the elephant in the room (pun intended) is the redistricting that must take place before next year's elections, based on the 2020 Census. With the filing deadline moved up even earlier in the General Assembly's session, it's unclear if the legislature will tackle the issue early once the session convenes in January, or if House and Senate leaders will ask Beshear to call a special session.

Since Jefferson County's population is larger than the ideal number of voters in each of Kentucky's six House districts, the county is split. Most of the western part of the county is in the 3rd District, while the extreme eastern part of the county is in the adjoining 4th District. This is Massie's seat and it extends all the way along the Ohio River to the Ashland area, encompassing the more urban northern Kentucky Cincinnati suburbs as well as a large swath of rural Kentucky.

One wrinkle the General Assembly's GOP majorities could throw into the process is to realign the district so the west end of Louisville is put into the 2nd District and the portion currently in the 4th folded into the 3rd. This wouldn't substantially impact the party's chances of keeping the 2nd District in the hands of Brett Guthrie, but it might bring an influx of Republicans into the 3rd.

Others are advocating for a more radical redistricting that would carve up Jefferson County and place portions of it in the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Districts, creating a new 3rd District that isn't limited to just the one county. It's not known if such a blatant attempt at gerrymandering would survive a court challenge, since ideal congressional districts are supposed to be as compact as possible while still meeting population guidelines to ensure districts of nearly equal size. But there are some maps floating around with the proposed new districts sketched out, and they would certainly dilute Louisville's power.

Even if only minor changes are made to the 3rd District's boundaries, there's still an interesting wrinkle to consider. Members of Congress are not required to live in the district they represent; only the state. That's what made it possible for Chris Perkins to succeed his father, Carl D. Perkins, even though the younger Perkins lived in Montgomery County and not Knott County. Should the General Assembly move Scott's west end home out of the 3rd and into the 2nd, she could still run in the 3rd.

None of Kentucky's incumbent congressmen are in danger of losing. Guthrie's being challenged from the right, and Massie from the left, but they're likely safe in their primary battles. No credible opponent for Andy Barr has come out yet. And Hal Rogers and (unfortunately) Jamie Comer are entrenched in their seats. And no real drama was expected in the Yarmuth vs. Scott race, until Yarmuth's departure changed it all.

In both parties' primaries, it will be the race to watch, even more so than a potential Senate primary, because as of now it doesn't look like any viable Democrat is going to challenge Booker. The party seems content to give up any chance of defeating Paul, because Booker has no shot. His base doesn't extend beyond the radicals on the left, who are an obvious minority in Kentucky.

The big draw next year is the local ballot. New county and city leaders will be chosen, and those elections traditionally draw more interest and participation than do gubernatorial and presidential elections in Kentucky. But some in the Louisville media are already speculating that the battle to replace Yarmuth will overshadow that city's mayoral race.

Even for those of us not living in Jefferson County or those not in the Louisville media market, the 3rd District race is going to be interesting. Will Scott continue to use race as a wedge issue? Has McGarvey already frozen out mainstream opposition with his early announcement? Will a viable Republican run? Even as attention turns to the state elections in 2023 and the presidential race the following year, the Louisville race is going to draw statewide observers.

Did Kentucky's version of AOC scare John Yarmuth out of his congressional seat?

U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, the only Democrat from Kentucky in the state's federal delegation, surprised many earlier this week when he announced his intent to retire from Congress and not seek re-election next year.

Yarmuth, who hails from Louisville and is one of the most liberal members of Congress -- and that's saying something, given the increasing leftist-leaning radicalization of his party -- had become one of the most influential members of his party on Capitol Hill. Once a Republican and an ally of Mitch McConnell, somewhere down the line his political ideology changed and he turned into a Democrat farther to the left than most of the rest of his party's voters and officials in Kentucky. He was elected in 2006, defeating Republican incumbent Anne Meagher Northup, and has not been seriously challenged since. Given Jefferson County's liberal bent, his seat is still considered "safe" for Democrats even as the rest of the state trends more conservative Republican.

It's almost inconceivable to think that Yarmuth could be challenged from the left, but that's exactly what happened when state Rep. Attica Scott announced her intent to run for the congressional seat earlier in the year. There's hardly any difference in the platforms of Yarmuth and Scott, except that Scott introduces racial politics into the mix. She's been an outspoken race-baiter for years, especially after Breonna Taylor's death during a police operation last year, and even got herself arrested during one of the many Louisville protests that deteriorated into a near-riot. (The charge was eventually dropped).

Scott is about the closest thing Kentucky has to a "Squad" member. Her ideas fit right in with those held by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and other like-minded radicals like Cori Bush in the House of Representatives.

Most political observers believed that Scott had no chance whatsoever of primarying Yarmuth, but one has to wonder why he decided to retire after indicating up until this point that he planned to stay in the race. He says he's in good health, but he's in his mid-70s and cited the common "spend more time with my family and doing things I want to do" reasons for dropping out of the race. Did he actually think Louisville voters would send him packing in favor of an even more extreme liberal?

While the news was surprising to many, it seemingly didn't come as a shock to at least one person. State Sen. Morgan McGarvey, who leads his party's minority in the Kentucky General Assembly's upper chamber, announced his candidacy for the seat within an hour of Yarmuth's disclosure, which came on social media rather than an in-person news conference. McGarvey had an introductory ad and a campaign Web site ready to go, which indicates he had advance knowledge of Yarmuth's decision and may even be the outgoing representative's choice for succeeding him. Since McGarvey was re-elected last year to a four-year term, he can run for Congress next year without having to give up his state Senate seat -- unlike Scott, who can't run for both Congress and the General Assembly and is having to give up her position in Frankfort to try to make it to Washington; or like former state Sen. Charles Booker, who gave up his position to unsuccessfully vie for the Democrats' nomination for U. S. Senate last year.

While it remains to be seen if the upcoming open seat will draw more contenders from Yarmuth's party, it also remains to be seen if Republicans can compete in the state's most liberal district. News of Yarmuth's retirement hadn't even had a chance to hit the evening broadcasts in Louisville before both Democrats and Republicans were speculating on a possible run by state Sen. Julia Raque Adams. Adams has positioned herself as a moderate-to-liberal Republican who is on good terms with some of the state's most outspoken liberals. She seems cut from the mold of Northup, who wasn't exactly a champion of conservatism during her political career and embarked on a McConnell-backed primary challenge to incumbent GOP Gov. Ernie Fletcher in 2007 after Yarmuth ousted her from Congress.

Kentucky's 3rd District is unique among the state's six. It consists of only part of one county, so there is not a large geographical territory for a candidate to cover. There's only one media market, so candidates don't have to saturate television stations in multiple cities with their ads. (Contrast that to the 4th District, which stretches along the Ohio River from Louisville to Ashland, and encompasses no less than four major media outposts -- Louisville, Cincinnati, Lexington, and Ashland-Huntington-Charleston). As previously noted, it's the state's most liberal district and even as Republicans make gains in voter registration across the rest of the state, Democrats still dominate Jefferson County. But there are still a decent amount of conservative Republicans in Louisville. Remember, it's where former Gov. Matt Bevin, one of the most conservative politicians ever to be elected in Kentucky, calls home.

The seat is not unwinnable for the GOP, but it will take a stronger candidate than Adams to claim a victory. Rank and file voters are growing increasingly dissatisfied with meek voices and squishy beliefs. They're looking for staunch conservatives who will stand up against liberal policies. If Adams does run and win the nomination, she won't excite her party's base.

Early indications are that unless someone else with a prominent voice comes out, McGarvey will likely be his party's nominee. He got the earliest start and appeals to a much broader swath of the electorate in his own party than does Scott. Even liberals in Louisville didn't like the air of lawlessness that took over the city last summer, the events of which Scott was a participant.

But one has to wonder about the timing of Yarmuth's announcement, months after Scott's entry into the race. Would he have delayed his decision if she hadn't joined the fray? Does he have concerns -- which, notably, aren't shared by the pundit class -- that she might actually have a chance to win? Did he want to get out early to give McGarvey a chance to get started on his campaign?

We'll see if Yarmuth expounds on his decision in the next few weeks. But for now, the race for what will likely be Kentucky's only open seat in a year in which Republicans are very likely to regain control of both chambers of Congress will be the one to watch in the Bluegrass State.

Brandon Brown: The hero America didn't know it needed

NASCAR fans are very familiar with the vagaries of racing at Daytona and Talladega, the two longest tracks on the stock car circuit. At 2.5 and 2.66 miles long respectively, the tracks produce high-speed competition. NASCAR's safety efforts to slow the drivers, most notably years of use of carburetor restrictor places, create tight packs of cars, often resulting in spectacular and damaging crashes that can take out half the field.

The unpredictable nature of racing at the two tracks, and the ever-present threat of rain at outdoor events in Florida and Alabama, has resulted in a number of drivers getting their first victories there. Trevor Bayne's only career win in the top-tier Cup series (formerly known as Winston Cup, later Sprint Cup and now Monster Energy Cup) came in the 2011 Daytona 500. Kentuckian Michael Waltrip won four career Cup races, two Daytona 500's and two at Talladega. (By contrast, his three-time series champion brother Darrell, one of NASCAR's all-time winningest drivers, won only one Daytona 500). And it took the late Dale Earnhardt, truly a legend in the sport, two decades of trying before he finally won a Daytona 500 despite his absolute mastery of the two tracks in other races.

But Talladega's fall race weekend a couple of weeks ago gave many in the country a new rallying cry that transcends racing. The outcome of the second-tier Xfinity Series race turned out to be bigger than the Cup Series win two days later by black driver Bubba Wallace at the same track where the "noose in the garage" hoax had occurred a year earlier.

Brandon Brown drives for a small, family-owned race team in the Xfinity Series, which can be thought of as the AAA league if the Cup Series is the big league. He hails from northern Virginia on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. He had never before won in the Xfinity Series until he found himself leading the Sparks 300 on Oct. 2, when the race was put under caution and eventually ended due to rain.

First-time winners always make for a feel-good story, but this tale definitely didn't end there. Once the race was made official, Brown was interviewed by a commentator for NBC sports. As the interview progressed, a group of fans started chanting a vulgar anti-Joe Biden phrase that's becoming increasingly common at public events. It was obvious what the fans were yelling, but for some reason, the reporter either couldn't hear, or had been instructed by producers to try to talk over or explain away the chant: "As you can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's Go Brandon." Making matters worse, the camera cut to the scene of the fans in the stands, amplifying their chant. Listen and see for yourself:

The ripple effect happened immediately. Reaction was instantaneous. Suddenly, "Let's Go Brandon" became a family-friendly way for people not thrilled with President Biden's administration to express that sentiment without the profanity,  either fully voiced or abbreviated as "FJB." Memes took over the Internet. A cottage industry sprung up, with shirts, stickers, and flags adorned with the slogan available for purchase within the week.

For his part, Brown seemingly took the incident in stride. He chuckled after the reporter's comment, as if admitting he knew that's not at all what they were chanting. He tweeted out a humorous message to all the guys who share his name. "To all the other Brandon's out there. You're welcome. Let's go us!" Other than that, he doesn't appear to have weighed in on the matter, or said whether or not he supports the "Let's Go Brandon" political movement.

Who knows what will happen to Brown's racing career?Will he find more success, or will his record perpetually show just one victory in the second-highest-level stock car circuit?Will he remain more or less an unheralded figure, or will we learn more about this 28-year-old inadvertently thrust into the national political spotlight by a race reporter's comment?

But whatever becomes of Brandon Brown, he's now the hero America needed in this moment of national decline. For the next three years, anytime someone says "Let's Go Brandon," everyone will know exactly how they feel about America's current leadership and direction.

Thank you, Brandon Brown and NBC Sports. You're exactly what this country was looking for.

A brief history of Kentucky politics for the uninformed

The talk of a possible government shutdown and a default on the nation's debt has placed renewed scrutiny on Kentucky's Mitch McConnell. As the U.S. Senate's Republican leader, McConnell has become something of a lightning rod for blame for any problems the Bluegrass State has.

My personal feelings about McConnell are well-documented. I'm not a fan in the slightest. He's the epitome of an establishment politician. He's a RINO and a swamp-dweller. He stakes out conservative positions only when he finds it convenient. At other times he's part of the go-along-to-get-along crowd. He's actively worked against the populist grassroots tea party and MAGA movements within the GOP.

But when national figures who know nothing about Kentucky and its political structure or history start listing all our ills and try to pin the blame on McConnell and claim Kentucky is a Republican "red state," they're just wrong. Totally, completely, and historically inaccurate.

It's true that Kentucky has a penchant for ranking high in bad categories, and low in good categories, but if you peruse that list of categories, you'll find that most of those items are the responsibility of the state government, not the federal government. And Kentucky has historically been dominated by the Democrats. Here's the proof.

A look at the list of our governors provides the first clue. Of the state's 63 governors, more than half (36) have been Democrats. Happy Chandler served two non-consecutive terms back in the days when governors were term-limited, and Paul Patton and Steve Beshear were both re-elected and served two consecutive terms.

Eighteen of our governors came from parties that no longer exist, including Democratic-Republican, Whig, National Republican, and Know-Nothing.

Only nine -- one-seventh -- of the state's governors have been members of the Republican Party. And when Simeon Willis departed office in December 1947, a long drought began for Kentucky Republicans.

For two decades (five terms), Democrats held the position. Louie B. Nunn broke the string in 1967, but he governed largely as a Democrat during his four years. It's widely thought by Kentucky political observers that his support of increasing the state's sales tax from 3 cents to 5 cents was costly to the GOP. Think of it as a preview of George H. W. Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" misstep. The tax increase was derisively called "Nunn's nickel" and for years thereafter, the GOP wandered in the gubernatorial political desert.

It was 32 long years and seven Democrats, owing to Patton being the first governor to succeed himself in office, before Republicans won the seat back. U.S. Rep. Ernie Fletcher gave up a seat in Congress, and defeated the grandson of popular former governor Chandler, but only served one term. The Democrats who still controlled most of the rest of state government launched politically-motivated attacks on him, and he lost his re-election bid.

Steve Beshear served two terms, and Republican Matt Bevin was elected in 2015, but he lost re-election due to a variety of factors on a ballot where every other statewide race was won by a Republican. The current governor is a Democrat, Andy Beshear, Steve's son.

So, since 1947, a Republican has had control of the executive branch of state government for only 12 years (and real Republicans for only eight years). The policy failures of the last 74 years certainly can't be laid at the feet of the GOP.

The legislative branch is similar. Democrats controlled both chambers of Kentucky's General Assembly for eons. After a coup that ousted Senate President John "Eck" Rose from power, when a handful of disaffected Democrats joined Republicans in electing Larry Saunders, and with the Senate close to parity between the parties, some Democrats switched parties, giving the GOP control in 2000. Subsequent elections have significantly firmed up the Republican majority.

As for the House, Democrats retained their grip on it until the 2016 elections, during which the GOP shocked the state by not only flipping the House, but winning a decisive majority. A number of Democrats previously thought unbeatable, including Majority Leader Greg Stumbo, lost their re-election bids. Two and four years later, Republicans scored even more impressive wins (including in my own district, where the GOP nominee carried the home county of his Democrat opponent in a locale where Democrats still dominate the political structure). And this happened in districts that Democrats had drawn up to protect their own majority.

It's been a slow process for the federal delegation as well. McConnell has been in office since 1984, and Republicans have held both Senate positions since Jim Bunning won Wendell Ford's old seat, but Democrats have dominated Kentucky's representation in that chamber. As for the House, it's been a methodical march for Kentucky Republicans to secure a majority of those seats. As of now, only one Democrat represents Kentucky in Congress. When the state lost a House seat due to redistricting because of the 1990 census, Democrats still ruled the state and tried every way possible to gerrymander the new districts in their favor. They put U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers in an unfriendly district, but he's won new term after new term.  Like dominoes, seats held by Democrats (Carroll Hubbard, William Natcher, Ken Lucas, and Scotty Baesler, among others) switched hands.

In local positions, Republicans finally took a majority of county judge-executive positions three years ago, but the majority of other elected local officials are Democrats. It's not uncommon for a county fiscal court to be made up of a Republican CJE and the majority of magistrates or commissioners consisting of Democrats.

Presidential elections are usually the national indicator of whether a state is a "red state" or a "blue state," at least according to media political pundits. Kentucky's gone for the Republican over the Democrat in recent years, although Bill Clinton carried the state both times he ran, Jimmy Carter outpolled Gerald Ford in 1976, and Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater in 1964. Adlai Stevenson even topped Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. The Democrat nominee has won the state's electoral votes 23 times since 1864, while the GOP has only been victorious 16 times. (The 1872 election is an outlier; Horace Greeley defeated U.S. Grant in Kentucky running under the banner of the "Liberal Republican" Party.)

Finally, take a look at voter registration numbers. In my youth, Democrats dominated that statistic by a total of nearly 63-35. But the reversal of those numbers has been staggering. Numbers recently released show that the Republicans are within striking distance -- 1.8 percentage points, to be exact -- of gaining a plurality of registered voters. Democrats are leaving their party and switching to the GOP or "other" in droves, and new voters are overwhelmingly registering Republican.

Kentucky's problems are not recent. They've been festering for a long time. The new Republican majority in the legislature is tasked with reversing those fortunes, and it won't happen overnight. I've long said that it will take at least 30 years of uninterrupted GOP control of the executive branch to purge state government of the liberal institutional mindset. Naturally, a Democrat governor will appoint like-minded people to political positions, but the Democrats have abused the state's merit system in the past to pack career civil service jobs with liberal cronies. One investigation showed that in a county where the Republicans enjoyed a huge majority (75-25) in voter registration, Democrats held 75 percent of the state jobs locally. Three decades will give most of the career Democrats time to retire and get them out of state government.

Again, this is not a defense of Mitch McConnell. But when national figures start pointing out Kentucky's educational attainment levels, cancer rates, average household income, number of counties on the "poorest in America" list, and all those other negatives we've heard for years, and then blame McConnell and ask why Kentuckians keep electing him and other Republicans, here's your answer. We don't, at least not historically. The Democrats have run this state for decades, and they still do, although their dominance is fading fast. Republicans aren't to blame for this state's historical shortcomings. They're just now getting their opportunity to fix them. Democrats own every problem this state has. And here's a reminder for those from elsewhere who are ignorant of our state's political history and reality.

Are the "woke" finally waking up? Profane anti-Biden chants may be an indicator

The term "woke"has gained traction in the last couple of years. It's generally used to refer to a liberal activist, normally a younger individual, who has had some sort of revelation about the ills and faults of American society and now rails against the perceived institutional racism and sexism that supposedly rules the nation. They seek to silence or cancel those who disagree with them. Conservatives are cast as evil Neanderthals who refuse to change with the times, as the "woke" mob members actively try to displace reminders of our past, warts and all. (Quick, when was the last time you heard of anyone trying to remove a tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr., the way statues of Robert E. Lee are coming down?)

But all of a sudden, the tide has turned. There's a phenomenon that's sweeping the country that indicates that many, including the young people the liberal Democrats are counting on to preserve and enhance their policy legacy, aren't buying it anymore.

From college football games to other sporting events to concerts to spontaneous outbursts in public places, people are chanting "F--k Joe Biden." For all of the unpopularity at various times of Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, nothing like this ever happened. "F Joe Biden" has been trending on Twitter for a couple of days, and the chant has even been documented at University of Kentucky football games.

Yes, the vulgarity is off-putting, and it's indicative of a societal decay that plagues both sides of the political coin these days, but it's surprisingly coming from places dominated by youth. While it would be more uplifting to hear the dissatisfaction with the president and his actions expressed in a less crude manner, the message is loud and clear. This is a pretty obvious manifestation of disapproval.

Are these young people, who represent the future of our nation and our culture, finally waking up to see just how poorly liberal ideas perform in the real world? Have they seen enough in the nine disastrous months of Biden's term to know he's screwing the country up? Do they not want to live under the "woke" culture Biden and his ilk promote?

This certainly doesn't bode well for the future of the leftist movement in the United States. If the young people who are most receptive to liberalism are getting a glimpse of the Democrats' future plan for the country and rebelling against it, it puts the 2022 midterm and 2024 presidential elections in a new light.

A lot can happen politically in a year. Just ask George H. W. Bush, whose re-election seemed to be a shoo-in in 1991 but whose fortunes reversed the following year against Bill Clinton. Some Democrats were predicting a decade or more of dominance after the 2020 election. They'd strengthen their hold on Congress next year, keep the presidency two years later, and banish the GOP to permanent minority status. That may now be in danger if the hordes of youth shouting their anger at Biden stay the course.

The profane three-word chant is crude and not really fit for polite society, but it gets the message across. Four-syllable chants have long been a staple of live events -- "Let's Go Wildcats, clap clap clapclapclap" -- and there may not be another way to phrase an anti-Biden cheer in such a succinct yet crystal-clear method. "Impeach Joe Biden" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it. But there's no mistaking the sentiment being expressed. People just aren't pleased with the 46th president of the United States and his decisions.

College campuses have long been regarded as one of the major bastions of American liberalism.  If "woke" college kids are loudly and vocally rejecting "woke" liberal ideology, there may be hope for this country after all to return to the nation's traditional values and founding ideals.

Your sentiments are appreciated, but come on, kids. Clean up your language. Cursing is never necessary to make your point. Find another way to express your disapproval. The best way would be in an election anytime Biden or someone of like mind is on the ballot.

Bad takes from Trump's Georgia rally

Donald Trump returned to the rally stage Saturday night, holding a raucous event in Georgia. Ostensibly billed as a kickoff for Herschel Walker's run for the U.S. Senate, much of Trump's boilerplate campaign speech was highlighted. It once again fueled the "will he or won't he" speculation regarding a potential 2024 presidential run.

But as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, you can always count on Trump's political nemeses to misconstrue his remarks.

In the hours after the rally, Democrats appeared to be giddy over the fact that Trump had seemingly endorsed Stacey Abrams for governor of Georgia. But it doesn't take a genius to realize that wasn't the case at all.

What Trump was actually doing, as anyone who has a grasp on politics knows, is that he was praising Abrams for being honest about who and what she really is. There's no mistaking the fact that she is an ultra-liberal Democrat. Trump's remarks about Abrams were really a dig at Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp. That was Trump's way of calling Kemp a RINO. Abrams has never given anyone a reason to question her ideology. For Kemp, it's a different story.

Trump spent much of the evening criticizing Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, along with other Republicans in Georgia and across the nation. For all of Trump's policy successes, his biggest achievement may have been a political one. He's done a marvelous job of exposing the RINOs who seem more inclined to side with Democrats than stay true to their own professed principles.

As can be expected, this doesn't go over well with the establishment; the "go along to get along" and "we've always done it this way" crowd. True to form, it didn't take long after Saturday's rally for various left-leaning online outlets to start quoting Republicans saying how upset they were with Trump for calling out Kemp and Raffensperger. Most were anonymous, but a few people who were identified as former Republican officials weighed in. And the Trump haters were more than glad to give these triggered RINOs a platform.

Trump's base within the Republican Party is made up of people who are tired of business as usual. They like the fact that he has turned conventional politics on its head. They've seen where the old practices have gotten them. They want someone to stand up to the establishment and the political machine. They want the swamp drained and they realize that government is dominated by a "uniparty."

This is something that Trump's detractors, both liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans, fail to realize. They're quick to claim "fascism" and "trampling on the Constitution"and make other baseless accusations, but when challenged to provide proof, they can't. Conservatives may want the system torn down, but they want it demolished and rebuilt in accordance with our founding guidelines.

So-called Republicans who find themselves drawing ire from the grassroots may want to ask themselves why that is. Why are these people who may have supported them in the past now angry with them? These voters' views didn't change.

Any number of GOP politicians could have tapped into the populace's dissatisfaction. Trump was able to do it successfully. No one who wants to return to the days of yore, when style mattered more than substance, is going to succeed in this environment.

In the meantime, it's fun to watch Trump's opponents and detractors misconstrue his words and totally get his appeal to his base wrong. There are still people who think Trump's "Russia, are you listening?"joke was a serious request.  So, anytime you see some liberal Web site or wishy-washy Republican politician complaining about something the former presidents says or does, rest assured he's over the target.

For potential candidates in next year's elections, time's a-wastin'

Some very important elections are on the calendar for next year in Kentucky. We will elect all of our local officials, the entire state House of Representatives, half of the Senate, and either 40 or 60 percent of school board members, depending on the district. We'll also choose the whole U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.

Yet with only nine months to go before the primary next May, and with no races on the ballot here in the Bluegrass this year except for special elections to fill vacancies, there's an eerie lack of talk about the 2022 races.

Quite frankly, this is amazing. In so many counties and cities, incumbents have practically been begging for opposition due to their words and deeds (and in many cases, lack of deeds) during their current terms. But despite so much criticism that's been levied against certain officeholders, no one has stepped forward to run against them. In the communities I'm most familiar with, I'm not aware of any potential candidate who has declared his or her candidacy and is actively campaigning. One online acquaintance of mine has announced his run for county clerk in his home county, but that's a couple of hours away from here. The silence is deafening concerning next year's races.

This just doesn't make sense. Local ballots are typically crowded, with a number of candidates seeking office. One would logically think that with controversial incumbents in the mix, the earlier a challenger announces, the better.

Now is an ideal time for someone looking to unseat an officeholder to get name recognition, make their positions known, raise money, establish social media presences, run introductory ads, sponsor local events, enter floats in parades, and hand out trinkets like pens, keychains, and the like at festivals and ballgames and other happenings attended by the public. Early filers can consolidate support, potentially freeze out other challengers, and start the journey on the uphill climb that beating an incumbent usually is.

Those already in office have a distinct advantage in publicity over challengers. By virtue of their position, they get media coverage not available to private citizens. They have all sorts of public resources at their disposal to promote themselves. They get invited to ribbon-cuttings and groundbreakings and other public events, where they can smile for the cameras or make a few remarks. There's a name for it in the world of politics and public relations. It's called "earned media."

Incumbents have track records -- good or bad -- on which to run. Challengers have only their promises and ideas, and they have to be relentless in making their positions known to the public to overcome the built-in advantages of incumbency.

I've long said that I have no desire to run for public office. I'd much rather be Karl Rove than George W. Bush -- or to make it bipartisan, I'd rather be Rahm Emanuel than Barack Obama.

But if I was going to run, especially against an incumbent that has made questionable or controversial decisions or statements, I'd already be on the campaign trail. I would have already declared my candidacy to garner early publicity and would have started attacking the incumbent's positions.

Next year's races will provide ample fodder for challengers. The events of the last two years have angered a lot of constituents and voters. The public will have a chance to weigh in on whether or not they agree with the decisions that have been made. Taxpayers who have been dissatisfied with the way officials have responded to their complaints and opinions finally have the opportunity to make that displeasure known in a tangible way. There's an undercurrent of dissent that's ripe for a challenger to tap into, but someone has to take that opportunity while it's there.

This is already happening in some of the state legislative races, where Republicans fed up with incumbents' go-along-to-get-along RINOism are actively mounting challenges. Actions by the majority in the recent special legislative session are expected to result in even more primary races against current legislators. These candidates know the value of starting early and building momentum.

We already have candidates positioning themselves for the 2023 Kentucky governor's race. One Republican has filed preliminary papers already to run, and others are publicly exploring the possibility. And that primary is nearly two years away. Yet for all the complaints publicly voiced against current officials in my area, the silence is deafening when it comes to people actually looking to run next year.

Time's a-wastin.' May 2022 will be here before we know it. Candidates who are serious about running need to step up now to make sure their voices are heard first and loudest, and don't get lost in a rush of last-minute filers.

Just for whom do elected officials work, anyway?

Congressman Harold "Hal" Rogers recently became Kentucky's longest-serving United States representative, breaking a record held by the late William Natcher, who died in 1994 while still holding office. Rogers, first elected in 1980, was recently feted in Frankfort where members of both parties praised his longevity. The ceremony held by state General Assembly leaders generated some news coverage in the Bluegrass State.

Rogers' appearance in the headlines, combined with several other recent attention-grabbing news stories, made me recall a workplace lunchtime conversation from nearly 40 years ago that is more relevant than ever today.

He may be a veteran now, but back in the mid-1980s, Rogers was very much what today is referred to as a "newbie." He hadn't been in Congress very long when I began working alongside Malcolm "Mac" Kilduff at my hometown newspaper.

For the uninitiated, Kilduff was the assistant presidential press secretary who made the announcement of President Kennedy's death in November 1963, and subsequently recorded the swearing-in of President Johnson aboard Air Force One. He had met a Lee County native named Rosemary Porter, and when she retired from government service, they married and moved back to her hometown of Beattyville. Mac took a job as a newspaper editor and was a friend and mentor as well as a co-worker for a few years in the 1980s.

At some point during Rogers' early years in Congress, he had surveyed his constituency on several prominent issues. At the time, Rogers represented the "old Fifth," a congressional district made up of mostly-Republican counties in south-central Kentucky, back when Kentucky had seven districts instead of its current six. Lee County was in Rogers' district then, as it is now.

One of the questions on the survey concerned some policy initiative favored by President Reagan. I can't recall after many years what, exactly, that policy was, but it really doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion.

The "old Fifth" was staunchly GOP and Reagan country, but on this particular policy, the majority of Rogers' constituents indicated they were against it. Rogers' response to that polling, was, basically, "Most of you stated you're opposed to this initiative, but I stand with President Reagan and I intend to support and vote for this anyway because I think it's the right thing to do."

This touched off a spirited discussion between Mac Kilduff and me. I was of the opinion that Rogers was doing his constituents a disservice by defying their wishes and supporting the proposal. Kilduff said that members of Congress are sent there to use their best judgment on how to vote on such matters.

Despite what you read every day, the United States of America is not a democracy. We don't have true majority rule as determined by the populace. Some states have various components of a true democracy, such as ballot initiatives and referenda, but they aren't commonplace. The country is instead established as a representative republic, where we elect officials to carry out our wishes when making law and policy. Most state governments are set up in this manner as well.

Still, we expect our representatives to listen to their constituents and respond the way the majority of them want. This is increasingly becoming less common, as government officials and agencies enact widely unpopular restrictions and requirements.

We do not elect officials, nor do we put people on the public payroll, to tell us what to do. Instead, we put them in place to do what we tell them to do, subject to legal or constitutional restrictions. Any politician who brags about making unpopular decisions needs to be removed from office at the first available opportunity.

We've come to a point in society where a government operating of, by, and for the people is an exception rather than the rule. When the people actually get the government to do what they want done instead of what the government wants to do, it's big news.

Once recent event took place in Pulaski County. Residents of the area were concerned over something they considered to be a safety hazard. They knew how they wanted the problem solved. Yet when they asked the government to take action, the agency responded that it already had a different plan under development. That didn't satisfy the locals. The proposed solution was not what they wanted. So they protested, loudly. They took to social media, contacted the mass media, and organized a public meeting to make their wishes known. The agency head finally relented, overruled the bureaucracy, and ordered the solution that the people were demanding.

This is how government should, in theory, operate. The citizenry makes its wishes know and the government follows through on it. Elected officials and appointed or career bureaucrats shouldn't substitute their wishes or their judgment for the wants of the majority.

Officials have to abide by the state and federal constitutions, as well as laws passed by various applicable legislative bodies. But policies don't have the force of law, and can be rewritten at any time. If a government official says "that's against our policy," then call them out and demand they change the policy.

The next few elections will become de facto referenda on recent government decisions. Local school boards are now tackling the issue of mask mandates. The mandates are highly unpopular, yet many school districts are signing on to them after that decision became their responsibility. Next year, during school board elections, taxpayers and voters will decide whether or not they agree with those decisions. That's the way it should be.

And in the following year, Gov. Andy Beshear will stand before voters of Kentucky, who will pass judgment on how he's handled things. His forced business closures, his restrictions on individual liberties, his bans on attending church, his handling of the state's unemployment insurance woes -- all will be on the ballot. The electorate will get to decide whether they approve of those decisions, or whether they disagree with them. 

Our nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, declares in it second paragraph that the only legitimate government is one that derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Well, the governed haven't given their consent for many things that have been forced upon them in recent years.

So remember, if your elected officials aren't carrying out your wishes, they aren't doing their jobs. Hold them accountable at the ballot box.