Hotair notes that the nation's largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood, urged its supporters to make a contribution in honor of mothers. That's disturbing on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.
How will we top that for Father's Day? Give Dad a vasectomy?
Monday, May 12, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
WSJ Features McConnell
The Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy interview with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell today. Just the amount of ink of the feature -- it covered nearly half a full page -- underscores his power. Here are a few excerpts:
On the legislation to address the housing crisis:
There's no way to repeal the laws of economics. Just like we had to work our way through the high-tech bubble, we're going to have to work our way through this. There have been a lot of housing speculators, and I worry that we might craft something that benefits people who were basically engaged in housing speculating.
Regarding the use of the cloture rules (requiring 60 votes to force the Senate to consider a bill), McConnell uses the Republicans 41 votes:
to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful . . . or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.
On the Democratic vision for the country, McConnell charges that
Democrats, led by candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are promoting the Herbert Hoover plan: tax increases plus trade restrictions.
Specifically, the Democrats have passed a budget that would include a tax increase three times larger than the biggest previous tax increase in U.S. history.
And the Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement hurts the U.S. economically, "because Colombian goods come into the United States now virtually duty-free", . . . but the U.S. has "not had the same kind of access to Colombia." The agreement would also support an important ally in the country next to Hugo Chavez.
Regarding the lapse of FISA (which granted immunity to telephone companies for assisting the government with wiretapping and is opposed by trial lawyers and Democrats):
It would make you believe that they'd rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail. . . . this is a private-sector activity. We're not in the phone business. There will be no terrorist-intercept program without the cooperation of the private sector."
Summing up McConnell's power, the Journal observes that "Across a range of issues, McConnell has lately been particularly influential."
The Journal notes in passing that McConell "is among those on the ballot next year," but makes no mention of W. Bruce Lunsford or the other seven Democrats seeking to challenge McConnell; the obvious inference is that the Journal views McConnell's reelection as a foregone conclusion.
On the legislation to address the housing crisis:
There's no way to repeal the laws of economics. Just like we had to work our way through the high-tech bubble, we're going to have to work our way through this. There have been a lot of housing speculators, and I worry that we might craft something that benefits people who were basically engaged in housing speculating.
Regarding the use of the cloture rules (requiring 60 votes to force the Senate to consider a bill), McConnell uses the Republicans 41 votes:
to do one of two things: either to stop things that are totally awful . . . or more frequently, to use the power of 41 to shape.
On the Democratic vision for the country, McConnell charges that
Democrats, led by candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are promoting the Herbert Hoover plan: tax increases plus trade restrictions.
Specifically, the Democrats have passed a budget that would include a tax increase three times larger than the biggest previous tax increase in U.S. history.
And the Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian free trade agreement hurts the U.S. economically, "because Colombian goods come into the United States now virtually duty-free", . . . but the U.S. has "not had the same kind of access to Colombia." The agreement would also support an important ally in the country next to Hugo Chavez.
Regarding the lapse of FISA (which granted immunity to telephone companies for assisting the government with wiretapping and is opposed by trial lawyers and Democrats):
It would make you believe that they'd rather see companies in court than terrorists in jail. . . . this is a private-sector activity. We're not in the phone business. There will be no terrorist-intercept program without the cooperation of the private sector."
Summing up McConnell's power, the Journal observes that "Across a range of issues, McConnell has lately been particularly influential."
The Journal notes in passing that McConell "is among those on the ballot next year," but makes no mention of W. Bruce Lunsford or the other seven Democrats seeking to challenge McConnell; the obvious inference is that the Journal views McConnell's reelection as a foregone conclusion.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Obama's "Substance" And Lawyers' Subsistence
The Courier-Journal today reprints yesterday's editorial from The Washington Post that praises Senator Barack Obama's "appealing but also insubstantial" phrases on the campaign trail but notes that "as Obama moves into general-election mode, whether and how he adds substance will be key."
One thing that should be evident from Obama's list of contributors is that his "substance", if ever articulated, will translate into more intrusive regulation of our lives by Washington, D.C. bureaucrats. That should be clear from this month's issue of The American Lawyer, which includes not only a scorecard of lawyer contributors to Obama and Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but also its annual AmLaw 100 list of the biggest and most profitable law firms in the country.
First, the list of contributors from big law firms tilts dramatically in favor of Obama (and Clinton) over McCain. Of the twenty major firms analyzed from data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,794 lawyers had contributed to Obama, 1,282 lawyers had donated to Clinton, and only 356 had given to McCain.
Second, Obama supporters come from law firms that perform immensely profitable work. For example, Obama's former law firm -- Sidley Austin, based in Chicago -- has the most lawyers who contributed to Obama: 217 (compared to 63 Clinton donors and 10 McCain donors). Last year Sidley Austin's profits per partner were $1,380,000.00. Or consider New York-based Skadden, Arps, where 170 attorneys donated to Obama, 113 to Clinton and only 26 to McCain: Skadden's profits per partner were $2,280,000.00.
We are not suggesting that the lawyers at these big firms have not honestly earned what they take home. But given how intelligent lawyers are (or at least think that they are), one would expect them to donate to the candidate who the lawyers think has their best interests in mind. The devil may be in the details of Obama's new government regulations -- if he ever reveals their "substance" as WaPo would like -- but rest assured lawyers will be well employed to interpret and litigate them.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
One thing that should be evident from Obama's list of contributors is that his "substance", if ever articulated, will translate into more intrusive regulation of our lives by Washington, D.C. bureaucrats. That should be clear from this month's issue of The American Lawyer, which includes not only a scorecard of lawyer contributors to Obama and Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, but also its annual AmLaw 100 list of the biggest and most profitable law firms in the country.
First, the list of contributors from big law firms tilts dramatically in favor of Obama (and Clinton) over McCain. Of the twenty major firms analyzed from data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,794 lawyers had contributed to Obama, 1,282 lawyers had donated to Clinton, and only 356 had given to McCain.
Second, Obama supporters come from law firms that perform immensely profitable work. For example, Obama's former law firm -- Sidley Austin, based in Chicago -- has the most lawyers who contributed to Obama: 217 (compared to 63 Clinton donors and 10 McCain donors). Last year Sidley Austin's profits per partner were $1,380,000.00. Or consider New York-based Skadden, Arps, where 170 attorneys donated to Obama, 113 to Clinton and only 26 to McCain: Skadden's profits per partner were $2,280,000.00.
We are not suggesting that the lawyers at these big firms have not honestly earned what they take home. But given how intelligent lawyers are (or at least think that they are), one would expect them to donate to the candidate who the lawyers think has their best interests in mind. The devil may be in the details of Obama's new government regulations -- if he ever reveals their "substance" as WaPo would like -- but rest assured lawyers will be well employed to interpret and litigate them.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Lunsford's $ for McConnell
It's one of the oddities of Kentucky's U.S. Senate race that the leading Democratic challenger, W. Bruce Lunsford, has made campaign donations to the man he seeks to replace -- Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Bluegrass Report reminds us of some of Lunsford's donations to McConnell:
McConnell for Senate -- $250 (10/27/99)
Bluegrass Committee (Sen. McConnell's PAC) -- $2,500 (3/16/98)
Bluegrass Committee (Sen. McConnell's PAC) -- $2,500 (7/10/97)
National Republican Senatorial Committee -- $2,500 (6/10/97)
National Republican Senatorial Committee -- $5,000 (3/31/97)
And that doesn't include all those pricey tickets to the Republican House-Senate dinner that Lunsford bought.
The Demo-blogs are spinning their heads around, arguing that Lunsford's contributions to Republicans were not disloyal, because he gave even more to Democrats. All that proves is that Lunsford is a hack, with no coherent ideology or set of convictions from which he can derive public policy -- other than his wind vane and pollsters.
Like it or not, McConnell's voting record -- based on his view of the proper role of the federal government -- has been steadfast. So it would defy reality for Lunsford to assert that he suddenly noticed that McConnell is a conservative. Surely Lunsford can't be that dim. The only thing that has changed, from Lunsford's perspective, is that his two prior attempts to win statewide office flopped; therefore he needed a new office to seek, and McConnell is up for reelection.
Moreover, Lunsford's contributions to McConnell do not square with Lunsford's campaign theme that McConnell has been reelected too many times. After all, Lunsford helped fund McConnell's reelection. Perhaps after the Vencor debacle, Lunsford was startled to see his money bear fruit without a bankruptcy or a Justice Department investigation.
Bluegrass Report reminds us of some of Lunsford's donations to McConnell:
McConnell for Senate -- $250 (10/27/99)
Bluegrass Committee (Sen. McConnell's PAC) -- $2,500 (3/16/98)
Bluegrass Committee (Sen. McConnell's PAC) -- $2,500 (7/10/97)
National Republican Senatorial Committee -- $2,500 (6/10/97)
National Republican Senatorial Committee -- $5,000 (3/31/97)
And that doesn't include all those pricey tickets to the Republican House-Senate dinner that Lunsford bought.
The Demo-blogs are spinning their heads around, arguing that Lunsford's contributions to Republicans were not disloyal, because he gave even more to Democrats. All that proves is that Lunsford is a hack, with no coherent ideology or set of convictions from which he can derive public policy -- other than his wind vane and pollsters.
Like it or not, McConnell's voting record -- based on his view of the proper role of the federal government -- has been steadfast. So it would defy reality for Lunsford to assert that he suddenly noticed that McConnell is a conservative. Surely Lunsford can't be that dim. The only thing that has changed, from Lunsford's perspective, is that his two prior attempts to win statewide office flopped; therefore he needed a new office to seek, and McConnell is up for reelection.
Moreover, Lunsford's contributions to McConnell do not square with Lunsford's campaign theme that McConnell has been reelected too many times. After all, Lunsford helped fund McConnell's reelection. Perhaps after the Vencor debacle, Lunsford was startled to see his money bear fruit without a bankruptcy or a Justice Department investigation.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Democrats' FEC Obstructionism Benefits Senator "Moneybags" Obama
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell continues to hang tough against Democratic bullying on Federal Election Commission nominees. As CBS News earlier today reported:
Senate Majority [sic -- Freudian typo?] Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he would not allow Democrats a separate vote on each nominee and instead wanted the FEC nominees voted on as a package, which would ensure approval of the most controversial GOP pick, Hans von Spakovsky. Democrats have made it clear that von Spakovsky would not pass the Senate while the other four nominees would be approved.
The FEC consists of six commissioners, and the agency needs a minimum of four commissioners to meet a quorum and issue legal opinions. Since the beginning of this year, the FEC has had only two working commissioners and has been unable to deal with everything from John McCain's public financing to every day legal opinions on campaign ads.
McConnell said no deal has been made and he wants von Spakovsky approved along with the two pending Democrats and two pending Republican nominees.
McConnell said "they'll either let all six [ commissioners] go, or we will not have solved the problem."
The Democrats' opposition to von Spakovsky's nomination ostensibly arises from his support of voter identification to prevent election fraud. That position hardly should disqualify him for a seat on the FEC. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal observed yesterday, "[l]ast week, a 6-to-3 Supreme Court majority agreed with Mr. von Spakovsky on voter ID." The WSJ added:
But don't expect that to sway Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who still refuses to confirm Mr. von Skakovsky as part of a traditional FEC nominee group of bipartisan pairs or even to confirm two other FEC nominees without him. How convenient. Blocking an FEC quorum opens up maneuvering room for Democrats in a year when they have the financial advantage.
The Democrats' strategy is as brilliant as it is cynical: Keep the FEC debilitated so that it has no oversight over Senator Obama, aka "Senator Moneybags", as the WSJ put it, whose fund raising is "headed for the stratosphere" and who is now more than "willing to renege on his pledge to accept public financing." And the Democrats continue to spin the problem as Senator McConnell's fault. Amazing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Senate Majority [sic -- Freudian typo?] Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he would not allow Democrats a separate vote on each nominee and instead wanted the FEC nominees voted on as a package, which would ensure approval of the most controversial GOP pick, Hans von Spakovsky. Democrats have made it clear that von Spakovsky would not pass the Senate while the other four nominees would be approved.
The FEC consists of six commissioners, and the agency needs a minimum of four commissioners to meet a quorum and issue legal opinions. Since the beginning of this year, the FEC has had only two working commissioners and has been unable to deal with everything from John McCain's public financing to every day legal opinions on campaign ads.
McConnell said no deal has been made and he wants von Spakovsky approved along with the two pending Democrats and two pending Republican nominees.
McConnell said "they'll either let all six [ commissioners] go, or we will not have solved the problem."
The Democrats' opposition to von Spakovsky's nomination ostensibly arises from his support of voter identification to prevent election fraud. That position hardly should disqualify him for a seat on the FEC. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal observed yesterday, "[l]ast week, a 6-to-3 Supreme Court majority agreed with Mr. von Spakovsky on voter ID." The WSJ added:
But don't expect that to sway Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who still refuses to confirm Mr. von Skakovsky as part of a traditional FEC nominee group of bipartisan pairs or even to confirm two other FEC nominees without him. How convenient. Blocking an FEC quorum opens up maneuvering room for Democrats in a year when they have the financial advantage.
The Democrats' strategy is as brilliant as it is cynical: Keep the FEC debilitated so that it has no oversight over Senator Obama, aka "Senator Moneybags", as the WSJ put it, whose fund raising is "headed for the stratosphere" and who is now more than "willing to renege on his pledge to accept public financing." And the Democrats continue to spin the problem as Senator McConnell's fault. Amazing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Why Hillary Slogs On
The Indiana and North Carolina primaries went about as well for Senator Hillary Clinton as did her Derby. She squeaked out a win in a State she should have won handily (Indiana) and was walloped in a State where her campaign had claimed she was closing the gap (North Carolina).
The numbers now are clearly against her. There is no way she will win a majority of the States' primaries and caucuses, and barring an astounding miracle, she has no chance of winning a majority of the votes cast by Democratic voters when all the contests are added up, even if Florida and Michigan are included.
But the news this morning is that Hillary will press on. As the Associated Press reports:
Politically wounded and financially strapped, Clinton plunged back into the presidential campaign Wednesday even as Barack Obama declared that Tuesday's primary results left him with a "clear path to victory."
. . . .
But even as Obama planned to take the day off from the campaign trail Wednesday, Clinton showed no public signs of easing her pace. The campaign added a noon Wednesday appearance in Shepherdstown, W. Va., to her schedule. On Thursday, she planned to campaign in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon.
Clinton backers appeared on early morning television programs to stress that she was still in the race and to urge party leaders and elected officials known as superdelegates not to flee to Obama.
"This candidacy and this campaign continues on," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said Wednesday on CNN.
Why does she continue? Ego is a good answer. But here's another guess: Hillary recognizes what Republicans are increasingly coming to understand, which is that the Democrats are setting themselves up for disaster in November by nominating Senator Barack Obama.
Though we once thought Hillary would be the easier one to beat, many factors -- including Barack's ineptness in dealing with the Reverend Wright, Michelle Obama's vitriolic statements on the stump, and Barack's inability to articulate any policy other than vacuous assertions of "change" and "hope" -- have old-school Democrats like the Clintons fearing that Barack is another left-of-center loser like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Republicans are going to have a field day with Obama, who doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to fight back like the Clintons would, and the Clintons to their credit are smart enough to know this and want to do something about it before it is too late.
Hillary is no conservative, but she is married to someone who understood the need to adopt -- or as they called it, triangulate -- conservative ideas in order to govern effectively. Though they may be fooled, voters have come to view her as a more moderate candidate than Obama, which likely explains why she has better numbers than he does when matched up against McCain.
So Hillary is hanging in there, hoping she can convince enough superdelegates to vote for her before the party nominates another leftist candidate whom voters will reject in November. It will be fun to watch whether the superdelegates can be persuaded to vote with their heads or not.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The numbers now are clearly against her. There is no way she will win a majority of the States' primaries and caucuses, and barring an astounding miracle, she has no chance of winning a majority of the votes cast by Democratic voters when all the contests are added up, even if Florida and Michigan are included.
But the news this morning is that Hillary will press on. As the Associated Press reports:
Politically wounded and financially strapped, Clinton plunged back into the presidential campaign Wednesday even as Barack Obama declared that Tuesday's primary results left him with a "clear path to victory."
. . . .
But even as Obama planned to take the day off from the campaign trail Wednesday, Clinton showed no public signs of easing her pace. The campaign added a noon Wednesday appearance in Shepherdstown, W. Va., to her schedule. On Thursday, she planned to campaign in West Virginia, South Dakota and Oregon.
Clinton backers appeared on early morning television programs to stress that she was still in the race and to urge party leaders and elected officials known as superdelegates not to flee to Obama.
"This candidacy and this campaign continues on," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said Wednesday on CNN.
Why does she continue? Ego is a good answer. But here's another guess: Hillary recognizes what Republicans are increasingly coming to understand, which is that the Democrats are setting themselves up for disaster in November by nominating Senator Barack Obama.
Though we once thought Hillary would be the easier one to beat, many factors -- including Barack's ineptness in dealing with the Reverend Wright, Michelle Obama's vitriolic statements on the stump, and Barack's inability to articulate any policy other than vacuous assertions of "change" and "hope" -- have old-school Democrats like the Clintons fearing that Barack is another left-of-center loser like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Republicans are going to have a field day with Obama, who doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to fight back like the Clintons would, and the Clintons to their credit are smart enough to know this and want to do something about it before it is too late.
Hillary is no conservative, but she is married to someone who understood the need to adopt -- or as they called it, triangulate -- conservative ideas in order to govern effectively. Though they may be fooled, voters have come to view her as a more moderate candidate than Obama, which likely explains why she has better numbers than he does when matched up against McCain.
So Hillary is hanging in there, hoping she can convince enough superdelegates to vote for her before the party nominates another leftist candidate whom voters will reject in November. It will be fun to watch whether the superdelegates can be persuaded to vote with their heads or not.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Republican Big Shots Coming To Town
You'd think the Republican National Convention had come early, judging by the slate of speakers expected for next week's National Rifle Association meeting in Louisville. USA Today reports:
The National Rifle Association says Republican presidential candidate John McCain is scheduled to give a speech during a forum at the N.R.A.'s annual meeting next week in Louisville.
N.R.A. spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the U.S. senator and presumptive GOP presidential nominee will take part in the group's Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum on May 16, the first day of the three-day meeting. The meeting will be followed a few days later by Kentucky's primary election.
Also scheduled to speak at the forum are former GOP presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, former White House political director Karl Rove, [and] Republican U.S. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell . . . .
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama received no invitation to speak. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear apparently will be the odd man out, as he looks to be the only Democrat scheduled to give an address.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
The National Rifle Association says Republican presidential candidate John McCain is scheduled to give a speech during a forum at the N.R.A.'s annual meeting next week in Louisville.
N.R.A. spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the U.S. senator and presumptive GOP presidential nominee will take part in the group's Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum on May 16, the first day of the three-day meeting. The meeting will be followed a few days later by Kentucky's primary election.
Also scheduled to speak at the forum are former GOP presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, former White House political director Karl Rove, [and] Republican U.S. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell . . . .
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama received no invitation to speak. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear apparently will be the odd man out, as he looks to be the only Democrat scheduled to give an address.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Chris "I Am's" Important Info Arrives!
My mail lady delivered Chris Thieneman's "important information," and I have never seen such a manly piece of campaign literature.
It features a big head shot of Chris. He seems to be under attack by cicadas. But upon closer examination the little green things are pictures of mint, the logo from the Mint Jubilee, which he founded.
Here's his slogan: "A Tough Man for Tough Times." It took me a while to get it -- ThieneMAN for CongressMAN.
Even more peculiar is what Chris neglected to include. He never mentions that he's the guy who saved us from the ill-conceived library tax. This was a huge accomplishment, of which he should be justly proud. But there's not a word about it.
And he never states that he's running in the Republican primary; the R-word is missing. It's unclear whether Chris is keeping his party affiliation on the down-low or if he still hasn't decided. Chris, if you're unwilling to admit that you're a Republican , then you're not.
It features a big head shot of Chris. He seems to be under attack by cicadas. But upon closer examination the little green things are pictures of mint, the logo from the Mint Jubilee, which he founded.
Here's his slogan: "A Tough Man for Tough Times." It took me a while to get it -- ThieneMAN for CongressMAN.
Even more peculiar is what Chris neglected to include. He never mentions that he's the guy who saved us from the ill-conceived library tax. This was a huge accomplishment, of which he should be justly proud. But there's not a word about it.
And he never states that he's running in the Republican primary; the R-word is missing. It's unclear whether Chris is keeping his party affiliation on the down-low or if he still hasn't decided. Chris, if you're unwilling to admit that you're a Republican , then you're not.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Chris I Am, Also Ran
I just received my second robo-call from Chris Thieneman. He wanted to make sure I'd read the important brochure he sent me last week -- the one that, like Greg Fischer's financial disclosure form, got lost in the mail. He further wanted to alert me to the fact that he will be sending me more important information. It was more pomposity than I can take on a Monday morning.
The kicker was his disclaimer, in which he identifies himself and says "I AM (!!!!) running for Congress." Unfortunately, he neglected to tell me which party he seeks to represent today, and I've had a hard time keeping up.
The kicker was his disclaimer, in which he identifies himself and says "I AM (!!!!) running for Congress." Unfortunately, he neglected to tell me which party he seeks to represent today, and I've had a hard time keeping up.
Derby Day Was Not A Good Day For Hillary
Derby day did not start out well for Senator Hillary Clinton, and it just got worse. Based upon an admittedly unscientific survey of the crowd arriving at Churchill Downs on Saturday, Clinton supporters were few and far between. Fans of Senator Barack Obama, in contrast, were everywhere to be seen.
Obama had a small army of volunteers holding up signs for passing motorists and marching up and down Central Avenue handing out lapel stickers, which were accepted by a wide range of racing fans dressed in everything from infield t-shirt attire to the most expensive suits, dresses and hats.
I spotted only one lonely Clinton volunteer lamely holding up a campaign sign, which prompted me to wonder what the Clinton camp was thinking not to have more people on the ground talking up Hillary at the event that probably drew more Kentucky and Indiana voters than any other this year. Maybe she thought she already has the Kentucky and Indiana primaries sewn up, and that a cameo appearance of Chelsea Clinton on Millionaire's Row would suffice. My sense from the crowd, however, is that Hillary's level of support in this region may not be as strong as she thinks.
Then, of course, there was the outcome of the Derby itself. Hillary's gender politics play -- picking Eight Belles to win -- boomeranged on her in a big way. One could not help but wonder whether the tragic outcome of the race foreshadowed a disastrous finish for the Clinton campaign. To be sure, unlike Eight Belles, Hillary would survive a second place finish and come back to fight another day (the Clintons always do), but the analogy Hillary brought on herself did little to create momentum in the closing stretch of her current race.
Hillary can take solace in the fact that Barack's pick -- Colonel John -- did not even finish in the money. But even so, Derby 134 simply was not Hillary's day and it was largely of her own doing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Obama had a small army of volunteers holding up signs for passing motorists and marching up and down Central Avenue handing out lapel stickers, which were accepted by a wide range of racing fans dressed in everything from infield t-shirt attire to the most expensive suits, dresses and hats.
I spotted only one lonely Clinton volunteer lamely holding up a campaign sign, which prompted me to wonder what the Clinton camp was thinking not to have more people on the ground talking up Hillary at the event that probably drew more Kentucky and Indiana voters than any other this year. Maybe she thought she already has the Kentucky and Indiana primaries sewn up, and that a cameo appearance of Chelsea Clinton on Millionaire's Row would suffice. My sense from the crowd, however, is that Hillary's level of support in this region may not be as strong as she thinks.
Then, of course, there was the outcome of the Derby itself. Hillary's gender politics play -- picking Eight Belles to win -- boomeranged on her in a big way. One could not help but wonder whether the tragic outcome of the race foreshadowed a disastrous finish for the Clinton campaign. To be sure, unlike Eight Belles, Hillary would survive a second place finish and come back to fight another day (the Clintons always do), but the analogy Hillary brought on herself did little to create momentum in the closing stretch of her current race.
Hillary can take solace in the fact that Barack's pick -- Colonel John -- did not even finish in the money. But even so, Derby 134 simply was not Hillary's day and it was largely of her own doing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
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.
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
WSJ on Kentucky Bourbon & Steaks
Kentucky made the Wall Street Journal twice today. The first article gives campaign advice, should Hillary and Barry decide to knock back a little Bourbon the next time they come begging for Kentucky votes. Eric Felten, who writes a regular column on cocktails, praises Buffalo Trace (good call) and Evan Williams Black Label.
It's not a bad column for a non-Kentuckian. But Mr. Felten seems confused about the origin of Bourbon, and attributes the start of the product in Kentucky to Evan Williams. He may have been one of the first, but he was not the first.
A Baptist preacher named Elijah Craig actually brought both the Baptist faith and Bourbon to Kentucky, in one of the most unlikely partnerships ever. His legacy lives on not only in the Elijah Craig Bourbon, still available, but in the historical marker located across the street from Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse. That brings me to WSJ- Kentucky connection number two.
The WSJ's second article is on "power tables where the business elite are eating" and features Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse. The print edition neglects to mention that exciting Derby-night moment when Jeff Ruby asked O.J. Simpson to leave, as the restaurant patrons applauded. The online version corrects that omission. My faith in the Journal is restored.
It's not a bad column for a non-Kentuckian. But Mr. Felten seems confused about the origin of Bourbon, and attributes the start of the product in Kentucky to Evan Williams. He may have been one of the first, but he was not the first.
A Baptist preacher named Elijah Craig actually brought both the Baptist faith and Bourbon to Kentucky, in one of the most unlikely partnerships ever. His legacy lives on not only in the Elijah Craig Bourbon, still available, but in the historical marker located across the street from Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse. That brings me to WSJ- Kentucky connection number two.
The WSJ's second article is on "power tables where the business elite are eating" and features Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse. The print edition neglects to mention that exciting Derby-night moment when Jeff Ruby asked O.J. Simpson to leave, as the restaurant patrons applauded. The online version corrects that omission. My faith in the Journal is restored.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
McConnell Paducah Ad is No Exaggeration
Mark Hebert's blog highlights opposition to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign ad regarding the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. McConnell notes that he secured legislation that saves lives and compensates workers exposed to plutonium. Hebert's source implies, in essence, that McConnell was part of a governmental conspiracy to delude the workers, and did nothing to help them until the scandal went public.
There are two problems with Hebert treating McConnell's critic as credible. First, the critic has a well-documented political agenda: he wants McConnell to lose. Second, the critic, a former worker at the plant, is wrong on the merits.
Hebert relies on Mark Donham as the source of "another side of the story" of the Paducah plant featured in McConnell's ad. Hebert describes Donham as "a former plant worker who quit serving on a committee that was looking at problems in the plant." But Donham is much more than that; he is actively working to defeat McConnell's reelection bid.
To that end, Donham runs a web site, where he has made comments like,
It's time for a Democrat to get the hounds out and track down McConnell's record. Fans of Kentucky politics know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Dems have any good dog handlers. We'll see. But I'm not sure that political newcomers, even well financed, can mount a successful challenge to the well entrenched McConnell.
Donham is entitled to his opinion, and to advocate for or against whatever candidate he chooses. To pretend the man is just another former worker, however -- without disclosing his political bias -- places his critique of McConnell in a false light.
On the merits, Donham essentially argues that McConnell knew that the Paducah workers had been improperly exposed to plutonium and yet did nothing. Donham writes:
During the decade between 1988 and 1998, McConnell did little or nothing to speak out for local residents and workers. In fact, DOE continually lied to local citizens about the presence of plutonium at the facility.
What Donham forgets is that the citizens of Paducah were not the only ones kept in the dark about the plutonium. Until the Washington Post broke the story in 1999, Kentucky's Congressional delegation did not know about the plutonium exposure.
Contemporaneous press accounts make this clear. Take the Paducah Sun's front page story from August 10, 1999, in which not just McConnell but Congressman Ed Whitfield and former U.S. Senator Wendall Ford "expressed shock and concern over the reports, confirmed Monday by the Department of Energy" that the Paducah workers had been exposed to plutonium.
DOE, under the Clinton administration, did not confirm the reports until 1999. The Sun -- the hometown paper on this issue -- notes that the Washington Post story was the "first allegation of plutonium use at the plant" and that "Employees, the public and members of Congress" had been told otherwise.
DOE and its contractors, Martin Marrietta and Lockheed Martin, had withheld information not just from the Paducah workers but from Congress. The plutonium use became public knowledge when former workers sued the contractors under the False Claims Act for lying to the government. Thereafter, Washington Post obtained and disclosed documents that had been sealed in the litigation.
Consequently, the plutonium exposure was news to the Kentucky delegation. Even Wendell Ford, who sat on the Senate Energy Committee for 18 years, was never told of the plutonium. As Ford told the Sun,
If they had ever mentioned plutonium and Paducah in the same breath, my antenna would have gone up. If plutonium was used at the plant, I should have known about it and if I had known about it, I would have attempted to correct it, and let the employees know."
Donham, in his screed against McConnell, never mentions Ford, even given the former Senator's role on the Energy Committee. But then again, Ford is not a Republican running for reelection.
After the Kentucky delegation learned of the plutonium exposure, McConnell immediately called for Congressional hearings to investigate. From this point on, McConnell authored numerous bills to help the Paducah workers. This is a record of achievement of which he is justifiably proud. It makes for a powerful ad to remind those of us who don't live in Paducah and didn't follow the issue just what he accomplished.
Even Leon Owens, the president of the local AFL-CIO chapter for chemical and energy workers, called McConnell's efforts to "address the economic, health and environmental concerns of the workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant" and its community "steadfast and consistent."
Leon wrote McConnell in July of 2002 to thank McConnell for assisting the workers in myriad ways, including construction of two plants to convert radioactive waste, as well as mobile medical screening equipment to detect lung cancer when it is most treatable. As Leon put it, McConnell's "efforts in the United States Senate are helping save the lives of Paducah plant workers who were put in harm's way."
That is, six years ago a union leader made the same point that McConnell makes in his TV ad.
At a time when DOE's cleanup budget remained flat, cleanup funding for Paducah tripled, as a direct result of McConnell's ability to procure earmarks.
McConnell also co-sponsored worker's compensation legislation tailored to atomic weapons workers. The law allows such workers who contract certain cancers to automatically get a lump sum payment -- without having to prove that their job caused their cancer. As Owens noted, that legislation would have died in conference committee without McConnell's "very aggressive" leadership on the issue.
Donham's invective against McConnell does not change the accuracy of the campaign ad. The more interesting question is, who will play McConnell in the movie?
There are two problems with Hebert treating McConnell's critic as credible. First, the critic has a well-documented political agenda: he wants McConnell to lose. Second, the critic, a former worker at the plant, is wrong on the merits.
Hebert relies on Mark Donham as the source of "another side of the story" of the Paducah plant featured in McConnell's ad. Hebert describes Donham as "a former plant worker who quit serving on a committee that was looking at problems in the plant." But Donham is much more than that; he is actively working to defeat McConnell's reelection bid.
To that end, Donham runs a web site, where he has made comments like,
It's time for a Democrat to get the hounds out and track down McConnell's record. Fans of Kentucky politics know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Dems have any good dog handlers. We'll see. But I'm not sure that political newcomers, even well financed, can mount a successful challenge to the well entrenched McConnell.
Donham is entitled to his opinion, and to advocate for or against whatever candidate he chooses. To pretend the man is just another former worker, however -- without disclosing his political bias -- places his critique of McConnell in a false light.
On the merits, Donham essentially argues that McConnell knew that the Paducah workers had been improperly exposed to plutonium and yet did nothing. Donham writes:
During the decade between 1988 and 1998, McConnell did little or nothing to speak out for local residents and workers. In fact, DOE continually lied to local citizens about the presence of plutonium at the facility.
What Donham forgets is that the citizens of Paducah were not the only ones kept in the dark about the plutonium. Until the Washington Post broke the story in 1999, Kentucky's Congressional delegation did not know about the plutonium exposure.
Contemporaneous press accounts make this clear. Take the Paducah Sun's front page story from August 10, 1999, in which not just McConnell but Congressman Ed Whitfield and former U.S. Senator Wendall Ford "expressed shock and concern over the reports, confirmed Monday by the Department of Energy" that the Paducah workers had been exposed to plutonium.
DOE, under the Clinton administration, did not confirm the reports until 1999. The Sun -- the hometown paper on this issue -- notes that the Washington Post story was the "first allegation of plutonium use at the plant" and that "Employees, the public and members of Congress" had been told otherwise.
DOE and its contractors, Martin Marrietta and Lockheed Martin, had withheld information not just from the Paducah workers but from Congress. The plutonium use became public knowledge when former workers sued the contractors under the False Claims Act for lying to the government. Thereafter, Washington Post obtained and disclosed documents that had been sealed in the litigation.
Consequently, the plutonium exposure was news to the Kentucky delegation. Even Wendell Ford, who sat on the Senate Energy Committee for 18 years, was never told of the plutonium. As Ford told the Sun,
If they had ever mentioned plutonium and Paducah in the same breath, my antenna would have gone up. If plutonium was used at the plant, I should have known about it and if I had known about it, I would have attempted to correct it, and let the employees know."
Donham, in his screed against McConnell, never mentions Ford, even given the former Senator's role on the Energy Committee. But then again, Ford is not a Republican running for reelection.
After the Kentucky delegation learned of the plutonium exposure, McConnell immediately called for Congressional hearings to investigate. From this point on, McConnell authored numerous bills to help the Paducah workers. This is a record of achievement of which he is justifiably proud. It makes for a powerful ad to remind those of us who don't live in Paducah and didn't follow the issue just what he accomplished.
Even Leon Owens, the president of the local AFL-CIO chapter for chemical and energy workers, called McConnell's efforts to "address the economic, health and environmental concerns of the workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant" and its community "steadfast and consistent."
Leon wrote McConnell in July of 2002 to thank McConnell for assisting the workers in myriad ways, including construction of two plants to convert radioactive waste, as well as mobile medical screening equipment to detect lung cancer when it is most treatable. As Leon put it, McConnell's "efforts in the United States Senate are helping save the lives of Paducah plant workers who were put in harm's way."
That is, six years ago a union leader made the same point that McConnell makes in his TV ad.
At a time when DOE's cleanup budget remained flat, cleanup funding for Paducah tripled, as a direct result of McConnell's ability to procure earmarks.
McConnell also co-sponsored worker's compensation legislation tailored to atomic weapons workers. The law allows such workers who contract certain cancers to automatically get a lump sum payment -- without having to prove that their job caused their cancer. As Owens noted, that legislation would have died in conference committee without McConnell's "very aggressive" leadership on the issue.
Donham's invective against McConnell does not change the accuracy of the campaign ad. The more interesting question is, who will play McConnell in the movie?
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.
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.
Pictures Deconstruct Thousands Of Words
In his letter to the editor, printed in today's Courier-Journal, Steve Seger points out what many of us noticed on yesterday's C-J Forum pages: photo editorializing run amok. But whereas my reaction was simply to roll my eyes and think, "nothing's going to change at the C-J, so why write about it?", Seger mustered the energy to respond, so good for him. Kudos also to the C-J for allowing the letter to see the light of day. Here it is:
Despite repeated complaints from readers, your editorial page staff continues to print majestic leadership-inspired photos of Democrats and buffoonish pictures of Republicans. The latest example was Wednesday with Barack Obama, jaw firmly set, sterm [sic -- The C-J still needs to hire a proofreader] eyes agaze, peering into the future no doubt.
Beneath that was a shot of John McCain, probably a still taken from a video, looking like he was about to burp up his lunch. Surely you don't think this kind of thing is going to make a conservative reader suddenly switch sentiments? More likely the inmates are running the asylum down at the good old C-J. What a shame.
Segar's letter neglected to mention the most unflattering and unfair photo juxtaposition of all in yesterday's paper: a picture of President Bush doing the boogie with a New Orleans jazz band above a picture of rubble from Hurricane Katrina. The sophomoric caption that the C-J gave to that montage was "Disaster Relief? Heckuva job, Georgie."
Given the C-J's editorial staff's photo antics yesterday, perhaps their depiction of the three Stooges in today's edition is meant to be a self-portrait.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Despite repeated complaints from readers, your editorial page staff continues to print majestic leadership-inspired photos of Democrats and buffoonish pictures of Republicans. The latest example was Wednesday with Barack Obama, jaw firmly set, sterm [sic -- The C-J still needs to hire a proofreader] eyes agaze, peering into the future no doubt.
Beneath that was a shot of John McCain, probably a still taken from a video, looking like he was about to burp up his lunch. Surely you don't think this kind of thing is going to make a conservative reader suddenly switch sentiments? More likely the inmates are running the asylum down at the good old C-J. What a shame.
Segar's letter neglected to mention the most unflattering and unfair photo juxtaposition of all in yesterday's paper: a picture of President Bush doing the boogie with a New Orleans jazz band above a picture of rubble from Hurricane Katrina. The sophomoric caption that the C-J gave to that montage was "Disaster Relief? Heckuva job, Georgie."
Given the C-J's editorial staff's photo antics yesterday, perhaps their depiction of the three Stooges in today's edition is meant to be a self-portrait.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Peanut Diplomacy
Former President Jimmy Carter issued a "liar, liar, pants on fire" statement today, in an apparent effort to salvage what's left of his shattered reputation as a diplomat. According to the Associated Press, Carter "accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of not telling the truth about warnings she said her department gave Carter not to speak to Hamas before a Middle East trip."
Regardless of what the State Department did or didn't say to the former President before his trip, one would think that Carter's own common sense would have told him that a meeting with Hamas terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel would not be a very smart move. It really shouldn't have been a surprise for Carter to learn that, after his visit, Hamas would disavow any intention suggested by Carter that the group make peace with Israel. Just as it shouldn't have come to any surprise to Carter when his coddling of the U.S.S.R. ended in the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan.
As one commentator put it: "He came, he saw, he Cartered."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Regardless of what the State Department did or didn't say to the former President before his trip, one would think that Carter's own common sense would have told him that a meeting with Hamas terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel would not be a very smart move. It really shouldn't have been a surprise for Carter to learn that, after his visit, Hamas would disavow any intention suggested by Carter that the group make peace with Israel. Just as it shouldn't have come to any surprise to Carter when his coddling of the U.S.S.R. ended in the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan.
As one commentator put it: "He came, he saw, he Cartered."
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)