Demo-blog Angst On Why Mitch Won

Jake at Page One attributes Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's loss to Bruce Lunsford as primarily the fault of the Kentucky Democratic Party leadership for not working harder.

I see it differently. Sure, the KDP leadership makes silly mistakes on a regular basis. But if Bruce Lunsford could not win in this political climate, the ultimate fault is the candidate's. Lunsford lost because he is Lunsford. In a little state, too many people know him and have felt his sharp elbows; he could not reinvent himself.

Crit Luallan or Ben Chandler, on the other hand, could well have won this race this year, and must be kicking themselves for not running.

Lunsford didn't lose because of lack of money or effort. Sen. Chuck Schumer recruited Lunsford to self-fund, and Lunsford obediently ponied up his millions. Lunsford worked hard and waged a very aggressive campaign. Whatever help the KDP failed to provide was more than offset by the ads from national Democrats, 527's and labor unions and Lunsford's vast personal fortune.

Though Lunsford's campaign was aggressive, it was a vacuous campaign. He mimicked the Obama rallying cry for change, but never gave us specifics, and wouldn't even take a position on the financial bailout for a month. It was aggressiveness for the sake of aggressiveness, and all the voters could be sure of -- in this, Lunsford's third campaign -- is that he really, really wants to get elected to something, anything. Any benefit to Kentucky would therefore be incidental to Lunsford's personal aggrandizement.

Kentuckians understood that without McConnell, as far as the elites in Washington are concerned, our state might as well not exist. Kentuckians picked the man who can prevent our state from being invisible and forgotten when the pork is served. And under and Obama administration, make no mistake, the amount of pork will be stunning.

Bruce's Hound Dogs Turn On Him

Here's the latest McConnell ad. I like the dogs, but I'm betting my boys will prefer the shots of Bruce's private jets and fancy cars.

Lunsford's Race Baiting

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has dropped a reference to Secretary of State Elaine Chao and her Chinese ancestry from its website republication of a memo from Bruce Lunsford's campaign. The Lunsford campaign memo dated October 27, 2008 complains of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's alleged ties to China. McConnell is married to Chao, who emigrated to America from China with her family at age eight.

The memo attacks McConnell for, in essence, selling out America to China, supposedly because he has a conflict of interest. A screen capture of the original shows that as of 2:00 Monday afternoon, the original Lunsford memo posted on the DSCC website contained a sentence that read,

1. McConnell is married to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, a prominent Chinese-American, and said that her connections were instrumental in raising money from Chinese-Americans.

That sentence is no longer on the website. The sanitized memo, as currently posted on the DSCC web site, reads:

McConnell has a Major Conflict of Interest When it Comes to China.

1. McConnell received contributions from donors with ties to Chinese intelligence agencies.

2. McConnell’s father-in-law was a schoolmate and close friend of the former head of the Communist Party in China, with whom McConnell worked to expand trade with China.

3. McConnell’s family owns a Chinese shipping company and profits from trade with China.

Note that there is no longer any reference to Chao. As originally posted on the DSCC web site, the memo contained four points under the "conflict of interest heading." The DSCC dropped point number one (regarding Chao, "the prominent Chinese-American") and renumbered the points two through four as two through three.

The Democrats rise up in outrage whenever anyone uses Sen. Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein. We are told that the country has "turned a page" and that we must not demonize Obama for having an "exotic-sounding name" and "not looking like" the Dead White Guys on our currency. We are reassured that just because Obama has a Muslim name, that is no basis to question his patriotism or portray him as Muslim or a Muslim sympathisizer.

It is equally despicable to campaign against McConnell for being married to a woman of Chinese ancestry, and to accuse him of casting votes because Communist China bought for or otherwise influenced his vote. In fact, the reference to Chao is even worse, because it calls to mind the statutes that criminalized intermarriage between races.

So the DSCC was correct to edit the reference to Chao from the memo; it's good to know that even the DSCC has its limits. The Lunsford campaign, on the other hand, is so desperate to win and so bereft of ideas that it has appealed to racisim as a basis for voting against McConnell.

V is For Villain

Candidate for U.S. Senate Bruce Lunsford seems drawn to the letter "V." His name remains synonomous with his failed company, Vencor, and its scandalous treatment of not only shareholders but comatose patients. Lunsford likes to boast that his next corporation, Ventas, arose from Vencor's ashes. And now, a television spot from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell introduces us to yet another Lunsford company, Valor Healthcare.

Valor is in the business of winning federal government contracts to provide medical care for veterans at community based outpatient clinics. It does not, at this point, operate any such clinics in Kentucky. Bruce Lunsford served as Valor's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and according to his financial disclosure form, remains on its Board of Directors.

Veterans have complained about Valor providing substandard care at its clinics in Arkansas and Texas. In the McConnell ad, veterans, including from Vietnam and World War II, describe their first-hand experience with Valor, and as with Vencor, it's not a flattering picture of Lunsford's company.

Valor's federal contract apparently pays the company a flat rate for each veteran it enrolls, regardless of their medical needs. Consequently, the company has a strong financial incentive to do as little as possible for the veterans. Valor, in short, can (and apparently does) increase its profits by decreasing the amount of care it provides. Some of its veterans complain that Valor denied them needed treatments and medicines to save money.

All Americans should be outraged when our government fails to provide our veterans with the care they need. These soldiers have earned our respect and thanks, and a grateful country conveys that by giving them state of the art medical treatment. That's not just good policy; it's a moral imperative. It applies with full force whether the government is rendering the care or, as with Valor, the care is privatized -- contracted to a private company.

Simply put, Lunsford's company let these soldiers down.

And as with Vencor, Lunsford profited at the expense of the taxpayers. Valor gave veterans inadequate care and then billed the federal government. All of this happened on Lunsford's watch.

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, after receiving complaints from constituents, asked the Veterans Administration to look into the allegations. On August 28, 2008, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. James B. Peake responded.

Peake told Hutchison that the VA "fully investigated" the issues at the Valor clinics. The VA "looked into the veterans' complaints and found them to be valid," Peake wrote. As a result of the "deficiencies" that the VA found, "failure to meet the performance measures has resulted in financial penalties" against Valor.

Though it is not in the financial services industry, Valor's mistreatment of veterans -- while the taxpayer pays -- epitomizes the greed and incompetence we've witnessed lately in the housing debacle. Entrepreneurs, like Lunsford, use government money to get rich and conduct their business however they want.

Lunsford's company exploited the sick and the elderly who risked their lives to protect our country. Lunsford's company ripped off the taxpayers by failing to do its job competently and honorably. Lunsford may be drawn to the letter "V" to name his companies because when it comes to his (third) run for public office, "V" does not stand for victory.

McConnell Lead Increases to 17

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released results of an internal poll that shows him up by 17 points. Here's the national take from Realclearpolitics:

McConnell is in fine shape in his bid for re-election, a new survey for his campaign finds. Though Democrats have plenty of Senate opportunities elsewhere, the Kentucky Republican doesn't look like one of them.

McConnell is viewed favorable by 52 percent of those polled, and unfavorably by 33 percent.

In comparison, check out Bruce Lunsford's numbers: 30 percent favorable, and 36 percent unfavorable. (Ouch!) More people don't like Lunsford than like him. Nor can Lunsford's high negatives be attributed to an anti-incumbent sentiment, because Lunsford, despite myriad efforts, has yet to win an election.

No wonder the guy is forced to pump his own millions into his own campaign; to know him is to dislike him.

Altogether, Lunsford has spent roughly $17 million to get himself elected to something, anything. He's not particular; he'll serve as governor or senator. Anything to plaster his mug all over our TVs. That's one pricey singles' ad.

Check Out This NRSC Ad

Democrats like to whine about the Patriot Act and FISA and how George Bush is turning us into a police state. But watch how Bruce Lunsford's supporters demonstrate their respect for the first amendment when someone tries to film them from a public sidewalk.

In addition to the disdain for civil liberties, the ad makes clear the kind of people to whom Lunsford looks for "support." And judging by the type of people in the ad, Lunsford is scraping bottom for his "supporters."

Note the coarseness of the language and the sharp elbows, even by the "trial lawyer." So much for civility among members of the bar.

This gives us a glimpse of what a "card check" election will look like if union bosses succeed in getting rid of the private ballot for workers who are voting on whether to unionize. The union boss in the video -- Kentucky AFL-CIO president Bill Londrigan -- has criticized McConnell for opposing legislation to get rid of private ballots for workers. Guys like Londrigan, under the Democrats' proposed legislation, would be allowed to show up at workers' homes -- night or day -- to "discuss" whether they want to check the union box on the card. It would be an offer that no worker could refuse.

Given that Lunsford is self-financing the bulk of his campaign, as he did with the last two he lost, why associate with these characters? Surely Lunsford's mother, back on the farm, told him he'd be judged by the company he keeps.

Perhaps he's planning for What Next -- what comes after he loses his third state-wide election; what comes after he needs a "new business model " to replace the last new business model that replaced Vencor. Lunsford could open a bar! He has the bouncer. And in a pinch, the "trial lawyer" makes a pretty mean bouncer, as well.

Bush's Approval In Western KY Helps Mitch

Mark Hebert reports that President Bush's approval rating is 52 percent in Western Kentucky, 37 percent statewide.

As Hebert notes, Western Kentucky traditionally has voted in large numbers for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Given Bruce Lunsford's attempts to yoke McConnell to Bush, the president's continued support west of I-65 is good news for McConnell: his base is secure.

McConnell's approval rating has exceeded Bush's in Kentucky by a wide margin all along. Kentucky voters understand that McConnell's position as party leader requires him to shepherd the president's legislative agenda, even --as with immigration -- when Bush and McConnell see the issue differently. In that sense, the party leader wears two hats. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid acknowledged as much when he spoke at University of Louisville a few months back.

Lunsford's attempts to strap Bush to McConnell's back look increasingly desperate. Take his most recent commercial, in which Lunsford implies that anyone who made less than $15 million last year (the average pay of an oil company CEO) is a loser. All of us non-CEOs, according to Lunsford's logic, should channel our bitterness at Bush and McConnell.

It's a blatant appeal to class warfare, much like John Edwards attempted, to no avail. And as with Edwards, it looks silly and condescending for a multi-millionaire like Lunsford to suggest that voters should feel bad about their lives because they make less money than a CEO. Lunsford would have to impose a form of socialism to level the playing field to the extent that every worker is paid like the CEO from an oil company.

The old Soviet Union tried that ploy; it starts by nationalizing all industry so that the government owns the means of production. It didn't work so well. Consequently, the Obama-Lunsford approach would offer a softer, friendlier form of socialism --an accretion of increasingly burdensome taxes and regulations. All that will do is discourage investors from taking the risk to explore and extract new sources of oil.

If Bruce really wants to put more money in the pockets of us non-CEOs, he needs to tell his his buddies Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to let America tap our own natural resources by drilling for oil here and now.

WSJ: McConnell Not at Potential Risk

The Wall Street Journal has listed ten Republican seats that are "at potential risk." Kentucky is not among the list:

A quick recap of the numbers: Republicans must defend 23 seats, compared to 12 for the Democrats. Of those GOP slots, 10 are at potential risk: Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, Mississippi, Maine and North Carolina. The Democrats claim only one vulnerable senator this year, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu. Depending on how big a day the party has in November, it is at least conceivable Democrats could get the nine seats they need to hit the magic 60.

The Journal makes two other points that were new to me. First, Democrats are"throwing at least as much money and sweat into that effort as they are into electing Mr. Obama." Second, "[f]ree of the filibuster check, the world's greatest deliberative body tends to go on benders," including the New Deal and the Great Society -- or potentially, Obamacare.

McConnell's Fox Interview

Here's the link to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's interview on Fox and Friends, in which he makes a strong argument for Republican legislation to "find more and use less" oil.

McConnell pointed out the absurdity of some of the Democratic proposals. Their proposed ban on America exporting oil, for instance, would only free up enough oil to run our country for half a day (and the oil is exported to Puerto Rico, in any event).

More than 1.3 million Americans have signed the petition to drill here, drill now and pay less. As McConnell has said repeatedly, electric cars, wind mills and whatever other alternative sources that American ingenuity can produce are the long term solution. In the meantime, however, we need to tap our own resources.

Bruce Should Run For Congress

Bruce Lunsford raised less money last quarter than Anne Northup, even though Lunsford is running for a statewide office (U.S. Senate) and Northup is running for the Congress.

Not counting his $2.5 million dollar donation to himself thus far, Lunsford raised $600,000 last quarter. Northup raised $625,000 for the quarter, and only donated $2,300 to herself. That is, Lunford has funded his campaign more than one thousand dollars for every dollar Northup donated to her campaign.

Anne Northup appeals to enough voters to enough extent that they will donate to her campaign. Lunsford, in contrast, not so much. As the McConnell campaign said, "Bruce Lunsford’s biggest fan is Bruce Lunsford,"

National Take on Lunsford Win

What started as a conspiracy theory on the Demo-blogs has now become accepted fact: Bruce Lunsford is Chuck Schumer's sock puppet.

When Andrew Horne precipitously withdrew from the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate race, Demo-blogs accused Senator Chuck Schumer of interfering. The theory was that Schumer wanted a self-funder so that the national party would not have to spend any money in Kentucky, since the state is not competitive in the presidential race.

Horne never said a word about why he withdrew, and the rumors flew for weeks, as "progressive" Kentucky activists fumed about the beltway interference in their primary. Horne was the victim and the Lunsford the beneficiary of Schumer playing Machiavelli.

Thus the Politico report headline, "Schumer-backed Senate candidate prevails in Kentucky."

Health care executive Bruce Lunsford will be the Democrats’ nominee against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in November after dispatching six other Democrats to win tonight’s Democratic Senate primary in Kentucky.

Lunsford handily defeated businessman Greg Fischer 51 percent to 34 percent to win the Democratic nomination. Lunsford was the preferred choice of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer, who liked his ability to partially self-finance a race against McConnell.

The most extraordinary thing about the primary results is that Greg Fischer won 34 percent despite running perhaps the most error-ridden, embarrassing campaign in the nation. Even my ten year old (who thinks Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner are hysterical) watched the Fischer "mud man" ad and observed, "that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen."

Among that 34 percent who voted for Fischer, some percentage had to be voting against Bruce Lunsford. The question becomes whether they hold their noses and back Lunsford in the fall.

W. Bruce, Tough Guy

W. Bruce Lunsford told AP reporter Bruce Schreiner that this election will be different -- that is, Lunsford will finally win one, and against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, no less.

Lunsford boasted,

"People ask me, `Are you ready for McConnell?"'

"My question is, is he ready for me? Because he hasn't had much
in the way of tough races, and this is going to be a race where
he's going to be held accountable."

Maybe Lunsford was busy too busy moving assets from failing corporations to notice election results. Lunsford's assertion that McConnell "hasn't had much in the way of tough races," is just laughable.

Recall that McConnell handily beat Steve Beshear with 57 percent of the vote in 1996 -- even as Bill Clinton carried the Commonwealth. That's the same Steve Beshear whom Lunsford could not beat; Lunsford only got 21 percent of the vote against Beshear. If Lunsford really regards Beshear as not a tough opponent, that only underscores Lunsford's own weakness as a candidate. After all, McConnell won more than twice as many votes against Beshear as Lunsford did.

Reporter Schreiner makes a few errors about electoral history, as well. He attributes McConnell's first election to the U.S. Senate to Ronald Reagan's coat tails. In fact, an oddity of Reagan's reelection in 1984 was that Reagan had no coat tails: McConnell was the only Republican to knock off an incumbent Senator that year.

When McConnell first sought reelection in 1990, Reagan was gone. McConnell ran in a political environment that -- like today -- included rising energy costs, a volatile Middle East and a very unpopular Republican president, who happened to be named Bush. And McConnell's opponent, Harvey Sloane, was considered a "dream candidate."

The national backdrop is again difficult for Republicans. But Lunsford is no dream candidate. To the contrary, Beltway Democrats like Chuck Schumer had to flatter the millionaire Lunsford into running just so the national party could pass on sending money to Kentucky. That's hardly a vote of confidence from his own party.

Lunsford's trash talking about being McConnell's first "tough race" explains why Lunsford has lost every race he's ever ran: his ego clouds his vision of reality.

McConnell Wins at Derby

He may not have cashed a ticket at the track, but Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell nonetheless won at Churchill Downs this weekend.

The Thoroughbred Horse Racing Association took a full page ad in the Daily Racing Form's Derby issue to thank McConnell for his "steadfast leadership and support of Kentucky's signature."

McConnell has led Congress on such issues as the Equine Equity Act (to make the capital gains treatment of horses similar to that of other assets).

I didn't realize that the horse industry's impact in Kentucky was so big in actual numbers until I saw the ad. The Commonwealth's horse industry, according to NTRA, carries a $ 4 billion economic impact, generates 80,000 jobs, and sustains $ 8.8 billion in eco-tourism. Nor did I know that horses are Kentucky's number one agricultural cash crop. (Indeed, I didn't know horses were a crop at all.)

All in all, it was a much better showing for McConnell than those cheesy lapel stickers were for Obama. Hillary, as we know, stuck with identity politics to choose her horse, and probably hasn't slept since poor Eight Bells had to be put down. It would be in poor taste to call John McCain MIA so we'll just say he blew it by not attending. Since his opponents only sent surrogates, it would have been a wonderful opportunity for some "earned media." Besides, I wanted to see what Cindy McCain would wear.

Dem Thought Police Chide Fischer

Greg Fischer's Old Lady ad has drawn the wrath of the Kentucky Democratic Party establishment -- specifically, Dan Mondiardo, Crit Luallen, Jack Conway and John Yarmuth.

These four "concerned Kentuckians" wrote Fischer to complain about his attacks against Bruce Lunsford's Vencor debacle and to ask Fischer to pull the ad "immediately."

Page One reprints the letter, which states in pertinent part:

Earlier this year, the Kentucky Democratic Party asked all Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate to sign an Oath of Honorable Campaigning and agree to focus on positive ideas and solutions for Kentucky, not on negative, personal attacks on fellow Democrats.
. . .

Of the seven Democratic candidates running for the nomination for U.S. Senate, you were the only candidate to not sign that oath. Now, your campaign has launched a personal attack against a fellow Democrat’s character. By doing so, your campaign is playing right into Senator McConnell’s hands and is endagering [sic] the opportunity for change this November.

Oddly, the letter never names Lunsford, though it obviously refers to him. It's also strange that Steve Beshear did not sign the letter, but Mongiardo did. But most disappointing is the apparatchiks' complete and utter disdain for Greg Fischer's free speech rights. So much for a free and open debate.

The "oath" that Fischer correctly refused to sign is troublesome as well. In first amendment parlance, it would be void for vagueness; its interpretation is subject to the whim of whoever gets to define "negative." That is, it's viewpoint discrimination, and the viewpoint being discriminated against is Fischer's.

There's no state action, so the first amendment applies only by analogy. For anyone who -- in the tradition of John Stuart Mills -- believes that the answer to vile or inaccurate speech is more speech, it's a shameful example of censorship.

It's also pathetic. Lunsford lost twice because of his Vencor baggage. It's the elephant in the middle of his campaign office. Ganging up on Fischer and sending mean letters does not change this central fact of the campaign. To the contrary, it only underscores that Lunsford is such a weak candidate that he cannot defend himself.

While I Was Gambling

Friends took me to Churchill Downs to celebrate my birthday yesterday, and as we drove up we saw five military helicopters circling the track. I thought maybe the boys at Fort Knox wanted to catch a glimpse of Paris Hilton, but it turns out they were responding to incoming missiles from the Lunsford and Fischer campaigns.

Lunsford, we learn, has engaged in pay for play journalism -- he actually paid to be interviewed on television. Beyond lowering himself to the standard of a shopping channel infomercial, the Lunsford campaign admits that it violated the law by failing to properly disclose the payola.

Meanwhile, the Fischer campaign's legal violations have grown too numerous to list. And Lunsford has accused Fischer of sliminess for his TV ad in which an old actress plays an old Vencor victim, or an old victim plays an actress or whatever. This caused Andrew Horne to fire back at Fischer on behalf of his new buddy, Bruce, for not playing nice on the Democratic playground and saying the V word.

All this sniping contrasts nicely with the new McConnell ad, which is perfect for Mother's Day.

May 20 is approaching too quickly. On the subject of primaries, I just received a robo call from Chris Theineman's brother, who reminded me that he had founded the Mint Jubilee. My heart soared when I thought said brother was going to offer me tickets to Earth, Wind & Fire, then sank when I realized he just wants me to vote for Chris in the primary. That will never happen; Chris was superb at defeating the library tax, but he has revealed himself since to be a flake of the first order. My Northup yard sign is forthcoming.

C-J Fails to Print Letter from University Presidents

The presidents of three of Kentucky's largest universities wrote a letter to the Courier-Journal to rebut David Hawpe's nonsensical assertion that Mitch McConnell caused Kentucky colleges to raise tuition. It's an important rejoinder from three people who address Hawpe's subject with knowledge and authority. Yet the C-J failed to print the letter in hard-copy; it only ran in the on-line edition.

The letter comes from James Ramsey, president of University of Louisville, Gary A. Ransdell, president of Western Kentucky University, and James C. Votruba, president of Northern Kentucky University. When three of the highest-ranking educators in the Commonwealth speak with one voice on an issue,most would call whatever they have to say newsworthy. But not the C-J.

This is the consequence of a the C-J's monopoly status: when it decides to go after a candidate, it fails to give its subscribers the opposing view. The paper tries to inoculate itself from a charge of bias by printing the university presidents' letter in the online edition, where only a small fraction of its subscribers will read it.

This blog previously addressed the merits of Hawpe's arguments that McConnell, a U.S. Senator, could cause tuition to raise at Kentucky colleges. McConnell likewise has responded to Hawpe's accusations.

Because the C-J will not keep the online edition available for the entire election season -- and because it failed to print the letter in its hard copy -- I will reprint it in its entirety:

Sen. Mitch McConnell has used his seniority and considerable influence in the United States Senate to move Kentucky's universities forward in extraordinary ways that allow us to serve Kentuckians and improve the quality of life for our commonwealth's citizens.
In David Hawpe's recent column "Give Mitch McConnell Credit Where Credit is Due," he cites a number of examples of federal funds earmarked for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Northern Kentucky University, the University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville and Western Kentucky University. We would argue that federal dollars are going to be spent, and we much prefer to have them spent at Kentucky's universities where we know best how to solve real-life problems that plague Kentuckians than at universities that will never touch the lives of Kentuckians.

At the University of Louisville, the Cardiac Innovation Institute – a groundbreaking research center designed to bring together the best minds in the field to improve the quality of life for heart failure patients -- was made possible because of the work of Sen. McConnell. He also helped secure federal dollars to expand Uof L's library that has earned it the distinction of being one of the Top 100 Research Libraries in America for our students, faculty, and the Louisville community. In Owensboro, federal dollars obtained by Sen. McConnell were used to start a Uof L partnership with the Owensboro Cancer Research Project to use tobacco plants to create cancer drugs.

Sen. McConnell has secured nearly $60 million for WKU over the last 10 years. WKU's Rural Mobile Health Unit, purchased and equipped with federal funds obtained by Sen. McConnell, takes students and faculty into surrounding communities to provide needed dental and health care services to school children while at the same time giving WKU students valuable real-life work experience. Federal funds have also been used at WKU for energy research, environmental initiatives, intervention programs for at-risk youth, and much, much more.
At Northern Kentucky University, Sen. McConnell has directed important funding for Kentucky math and science improvement, informatics and economic development initiatives – all a part of the university's talent development business plan designed to escalate Northern Kentucky's contribution to Kentucky's economic progress.

To lose the critical federal funding that Sen. McConnell directs to Kentucky's universities would be devastating. Those federal funds not only benefit our universities, but they directly impact Kentuckians who badly need the services and programs these funds support.
So together we thank Sen. McConnell for what he has done to help us advance higher education in Kentucky. He certainly does deserve proper credit, and we'll continue to thank him when an opportunity is presented.

James Ramsey is president of University of Louisville, Gary A. Ransdell is president of Western Kentucky University, and James C. Votruba is president of Northern Kentucky University.

Hawpe and his cronies at the C-J are entitled to their (mistaken) views. But by failing actually to print the university presidents' letter, they have crossed the line from partisan to deceitful. They manage to print letters from numerous cranks every day; surely a direct response from some of the Commonwealth's most esteemed educators warrants the same courtesy.

Fear and Loathing on the Demo-blogs

Can somebody please move the primary to October? I don't want the fun to end. Take the ongoing debate on the Demo-blogs about who would be the Biggest Loser as the Democratic nominee to face Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.

Jake from Page One describes the purpose of the Democratic nominee:

I have always said Mitch can't be beaten in November. But Bruce can make him spend his mountain of cash in Kentucky instead of in five other states electing five other right-wing shills. (Emphasis added.)

Ben Carter from Bluegrass Roots, in contrast, is so captivated by Greg Fischer he doesn't seem to care that Fischer's approval rating has not even broken into double digits.

We agree that Bruce’s chances are zero, but simply disagree about Greg’s chances. I think he has a chance, you don’t. . . . I think it also explains the ultimate source of our disagreement: while you are in search of a candidate who can lose least bad, I am looking for the candidate with the best chance of winning. I believe that candidate is Greg Fischer. (Emphasis added.)

The Rural Democrat reported the cat fight and concluded:

I will throw a little shock grenade in on this fight and say BOTH blogs are disconnected from Kentucky politics.

Not quite. Both agree that if Lunsford is the nominee -- which he will be -- McConnell wins.

Lunsford Discloses Huge Assets; Where's Fischer's Form?

W. Bruce Lunsford has filed his candidate financial disclosure report with the United States Senate Office of Public Records. It's a glimpse into the world of the rich who want to be famous. Greg Fischer, in contrast, appears to have missed the April 20th deadline, in yet another violation of the laws governing candidates for federal office.

We anxiously await to see whether Fischer's disclosure form was lost in the mail. As a candidate for federal office who does not file annually, the Ethics in Government Act required Fischer to file his financial disclosure form 30 days before the primary, that is, April 20th. If Fischer fails to file the form, he is subject to a fine or even referral to the Department of Justice.

It's just one form out of many that candidates must file, and yet it reveals the difference between the two men, or at least their campaigns.

Lunsford signed and dated his form April 17, 2008 (three days early) and took no chances on it arriving late; he sent it via UPS Next Day Air -- in which he has invested.

At this point, nothing jumps out from Lunsford's form except that he is very, very rich. The diversity of his investments is also striking. The man owns interests in everything from the frivolous -- races horses, film-making companies, amusement parks --to more conventional assets -- real estate, mutual funds and health care-related companies.

Whereas many of us have one mortgage, Lunsford has many, scattered around the country. And whereas many of us have mutual funds or savings accounts, Lunsford has interests in limited liability corporations and limited partnerships -- just page after page of assets. That includes many funds with Goldman Sachs; these appear to be the sort limited to high net worth individuals.

Not to incite any class warfare, but as I place my $ 2 bet on the Derby, I will think of Lunsford, who valued his thoroughbred horses at between $5 million to $ 25 million. That's a lot of horse flesh.

Fischer, on the other hand, is the horse who couldn't get loaded into the starting gate.

Doom and Gloom at Blue Grass Roots

The Demo-blogs grow more dispirited each day, as the election draws closer. Here's the latest prediction for Blue Grass Roots:

Bruce Lunsford has no chance at winning in the fall. Z-ee-ro. Greg Fischer has at least a small chance. I prefer a small chance at big change than no chance at no change.

The nagging question remains: Are Chuck Schumer and the national Democrats really so out of touch that they don't know that Lunsford is despised as a corrupt retread? Or are they so cheap that they don't care about Lunsford's chances, and just wanted an excuse to throw their money elsewhere?

These Bumper Stickers Are Great!

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign has unveiled a new series of bumper stickers that support those Kentucky teams playing in the NCAA tournament. Order yours here. I'm getting the "Cardinals for McConnell" bumper sticker.

Best of luck to everyone on their brackets.