Comer to Run For Whitfield's Seat

Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield announced earlier today that he is retiring from the Congressional seat he has occupied since 1995.  Agriculture Commissioner Jamie Comer is said to be announcing his candidacy tomorrow for Kentucky's First Congressional District.

Comer fell 83 votes short of becoming the Republican nominee for governor earlier this year.

Why Did RGA Go Dark on Bevin?

I freely admit I did not see coming the Republican Governors' Association's decision to stop running ads on behalf of Matt Bevin.

My sense is that the race is tight, so I don't think the RGA has abandoned him as a lost cause. Rather, I think that Bevin's fundraising numbers must be bad.

RGA has the money, and almost no other races this year. But the national party organizations like to see the candidate raising his or her own funds rather than waiting for the national money to pour in. The RGA money is sort of like a matched donation in that sense.

Bevin made a big point at the GLI lunch that he would not be beholden to anyone. This rugged independence may be why he hasn't been very aggressive on the fundraising front.

For example, Bevin did not reach out to the big donors one would expect to get a call the day after the primary election until an inexplicable amount of time had passed. There have been a spate of fundraisers for him recently, but it is rather late to be just now asking for contributions.

Jack Conway is in many respects the complete opposite. All he does is fundraise. It's a way to make the campaign look like it's doing stuff without actually mixing with the great unwashed. Apparently Conway doesn't even like to mix with the big donors; at a recent fundraiser, Conway had to  be prodded to get up and work the room of major donors. Not a people person, that Conway.

Bevin has the luxury of being able to self-fund. Not only is the guy rich, the vast majority of his personal fortune is said to be liquid. He needs to write his campaign a big check, stat. Then I would expect the RGA to go back on the air.

Make Obama Use His Veto Pen

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does not have the votes to achieve much. As a result the base is angry and frustrated -- directly leading to the rise of Donald Trump.  Talk radio, in particular Hugh Hewitt, are pressuring McConnell to use the "nuclear option" to get rid of the filibuster. That would allow Republicans to pass legislation with a bare majority, rather than the 60 vote super-majority now required to end a filibuster with a cloture vote.

McConnell wisely resits the pressure to nuke the filibuster because he recognizes that it has protected conservative principles by allowing Republicans to block terrible legislation, such as union card check. McConnell's concerns are well-placed, given that Republicans have only had more than 55 votes in the Senate once in the last century.  If history is any guide, Republicans will need the protection of filibuster. Republicans should take the long view on this issue.

McConnell is also correctly concerned about the Senate as an institution. As George Washington explained, the Senate is tea saucer that cools and slows down the hot water sloshing out of the tea cup:  the House of Representatives. Does the filibuster slow things down?  Yes; it's supposed to.

But the anger among Republicans is real; it is wide as well as deep. McConnell needs to acknowledge that fact and modulate accordingly.

I'm no expert on Senate procedure. However, it seems to me that Republicans can use the reconciliation process -- which only requires 51 votes -- to send a bill to Obama that keeps the government from shutting down. Attach to that a rider that defunds Planned Parenthood. By using the reconciliation process, there is no filibuster.  Therefore, there is no need for a cloture vote to end a filibuster. Likewise, there is no need to nuke the filibuster to get around Republicans not having 60 votes.

Recall that the reconciliation process was what Democrats used to enact Obamacare.

To be sure, Obama would veto a bill with a rider that defunds Planned Parenthood. He has said so, and in this instance, I take him at his word. Make him veto it anyhow.  If the government shuts down as a result, it will be on his watch.

The Planned Parenthood videos are horrific. Desperate measures are called for as a response. Making Obama veto a bill is a start.

McConnell Reacts to Boehner's Resignation

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor regarding the resignation of John Boehner:

"Grace under pressure.

“Country and institution before self.

“These are the first things that come to mind when I think of John Boehner.

“He is an ally. He is a friend. And he took over as Republican Leader at a difficult time for his party.

“When some said Republicans could never recover, he never gave up.

“When some gave in to defeatism, he kept up the fight.

“Because he did, Speaker Boehner was able to transform a broken and dispirited Republican minority into the largest Republican majority since the 1920s.

“That’s a legacy few can match.

“He flew across the country more times than he can count to support members of his conference, and to recruit new members to the cause. As leader of a new majority, he turned the tide in Congress and brought conservative reform in many areas. He worked tirelessly to provide hope to those who dreamed of a better life and to middle-class families who struggled under the weight of this Administration. 

“John knows what it’s like to struggle and to dream of something better. He’s lived it.

“That a young man from Reading, Ohio wielding a bar towel could one day wield the gavel of the U.S. House of Representatives — it reminds us of the continuing promise of this country.

“I know yesterday was an incredibly important event for the Speaker. It was his aim to bring the same spirit of grace that has always guided his life, to others. You only had to look out onto the Capitol lawn to see what he achieved. And that he chose this moment to make this decision, means he will be leaving us in a similar spirit.

“I know we’ll all have more to say in the weeks to come. But for now, thank you, my friend.”

Warming Up to Matt Bevin

I went to a fundraiser for Matt Bevin last night and it has caused me to rethink my opinion of him:  I was very impressed by how thoughtful and substantive his answers were to a wide range of topics. It's no secret that the guy is very bright. What I had not previously noticed, however, is how creative he is with respect to coming up with solutions to solve problems. That's an attribute that we could use more of in our elected leaders.

But what really impressed me was his temperament.  This fundraiser was held at a club, and a member who may have been overserved wandered in from the bar during the event. This person asked an aggressive question about the horse industry, to which Matt politely responded. His response was not satisfactory to the questioner, who kept interrupting him, not with questions at this point, but to argue -- even getting profane. Matt was relentlessly polite and displayed no anger whatsoever. And he kept trying to address the substance of the topic all the while being yelled at and interrupted -- at his own fundraiser.

This contrasts the narrative that local political reporters have been pushing about Matt's temper and temperament. 

A couple other things stood out from the evening.

 I was joking with Matt about Sweaty Jack Conway's debate performance under the heat of the television lights. Matt informed that Conway was sweating profusely back stage, even before they went under the stage lights. He said that Conway appeared to be extremely nervous while awaiting for the debate to start.

How odd for someone who has served two terms as attorney general and run for Congress and U.S. Senate to be so nervous about a debate; he has more debate and campaign experience than Matt and Drew Curtis combined. It reinforces my theory that Conway does not really want to be governor; he is running out of a sense of entitled noblesse oblige.

I asked Matt to about his comment that he would appoint qualified people regardless of their party affiliation; I told him this bothered me as a conservative -- that I didn't see how he could govern as a conservative if he appointed people who do not espouse conservative principles.  

Matt clarified that he would appoint qualified conservatives regardless of party affiliation. He made the point that there are still many Kentuckians who are Democrats by registration as a historical accident rather than a reflection of ideology. Someone who agrees with him ideologically -- and has the requisite expertise for a given position -- might still be a good selection notwithstanding party registration. And he indicated that in the vast majority of instances, he would likely appoint a Republican. I thought it was a good answer and it eased my doubts on the point.

Finally, I have to credit Matt with how much he as improved as a candidate. That reflects a discipline and willingness to learn, and speaks well to his ability to govern.

This race is tight. Republicans, conservative Democrats and independents who want Kentucky to be its best need to get behind Matt Bevin now.  

FAREWELL SCOTT WALKER

Six months ago, I would never have guessed that his presidential campaign would burn out so quickly.

I met Scott Walker at a Federalist Society event a few years ago.  He gave a good, substantive speech that highlighted the reforms he has enacted in Wisconsin. I was particularly impressed with his record on battling the teachers' unions, which in my view, have done more to harm education in this country than almost anything.

I was also impressed with his ability to survive the relentless attacks and recall elections the Dems kept throwing him -- particularly in a purple state.

In light of Walker's record --both in policy and politically -- I thought he merited a serious look as a presidential nominee.

And yet he never caught on. This is just not his time. That he realized this so quickly is to his credit and reflects his political acumen.

Happy Hour Debate

Gov. Bobby Jindal is on fire.  Can't believe this is the same guy who froze during his State of the Union rebuttal when he was first elected.  I loved the point that his criticism of Trump did not violate Reagan's 11th Commandment -- because that only applies to Republicans!

This is quickly turning into a two person debate between Jindal and Rick Santorum.

***

Kim Davis is now an item in the debate.  George Pataki seems to be the only one to understand that she was an elected official who took an oath to uphold the law.  He would have fired her.

Kim Davis does not bake wedding cakes.  She is not a member of the private sector.  Totally different issue.

****

Jindal is right.  Stop appointing judges with blank slates as records.  Pick conservatives with known track records who are willing to go on the record rather than hide what they believe.

Glad Fisher Didn't Take a Selfie!

Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher's potty tweet is now a national story. The Huffington Post has the original photo, plainly taken while Fisher or one of his minions was sitting on the toilet.  The tweets he got in reply are classic.

Yes, Kentucky has been getting all kinds of publicity lately.

I guess this is Fisher leading from behind.

Jack Conway is Delusional

Jack Conway sent the following email last night:  "I just left the stage. . . . I feel great because we clearly came out on top."

Were we at the same debate?

Aside from sweating more than Richard Nixon, he performed abysmally.  Speech and debate teams should study the video as an example of what not to do.

Even the unknown independent, Drew Curtis, beat him.

For Conway to send an email blast touting how well he did is just unhinged.

Jack Conway has the stench of defeat.

Bevin Wins Debate

Matt Bevin out-touched independent candidate Drew Curtis to win tonight's Bluegrass Debate at Bellarmine University. Jack Conway performed poorly and was the clear loser. in third place.

Curtis displayed a sense of humor that was appealing at first but then degenerated into flippancy. That's too bad, because his intellect was impressive. Had Curtis played it straight, he would have won the debate easily. When he was serious -- particularly on the pension crisis -- his answers were thoughtful and well-reasoned.

I could not even recall Curtis's name going into the debate.  I thought he was just a gadfly. It was startling, therefore, to see him out-debate Conway -- a lawyer.  To be sure, expectations for Curtis were low to non-existent going in to the debate.

Conway looked like he was going to throw up.  He sweated more than Richard Nixon.  His color was bad and his usually coiffed hair looked disheveled.  Any time Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was mentioned, Conway kept repeating that he understood that there were passionate feelings on both sides of the issue.

Conway took a few swipes at Bevin's character. He criticized Bevin for not releasing his taxes.  Bevin got an assist from Curtis, who basically said he (Curtis) would not only release his taxes but give tours of his house, that is "who cares?"

Bevin confronted Conway about crying on camera while announcing that he would not appeal the decision that struck down Kentucky's marriage amendment; Conway replied that he just wanted to save the taxpayers money.  As if any Democrat would cry over that!

Conway was asked about the Democrats' lack of response to sexual harassment of women who work in state government in Frankfort.  He replied something about how smart his wife is, and how he has two daughters and even his dog is female.  Embarrassing. Just embarrassing.

Black Lives Matters Needs Cops, Too

Here's the link to my latest Courier-Journal column. It is on the C-J website now, and will appear in tomorrow's paper edition.  Thanks to the C-J  for giving me permission to reprint:

There were many images of first responders on the 14th anniversary of 9/11.  Police officers stood behind the bereaved at the 9/11 Memorial, guarding them and mourning with them.

As a mother of boys, I recall that the most popular Halloween costumes for little boys in 2001 were firefighter and police uniforms. That resulted from the courage of the first responders on 9/11. The blessing that came out of that terrible day is that we witnessed numerous ordinary people become heroes. It was a powerful lesson.

Recently I heard of a local police officer who became a hero in a quieter way. LMPD Officer Michael Leek gave a new bike to an eight-year-old whose last two bikes had been stolen.

WHAS reported that the boy, Clarence, had helped the officer search for lost keys. The two began talking, and the officer observed that Clarence needed a new bike. The child explained that he had owned a new bike, but that it had been stolen, so he was making due with an old one. Two weeks later, Leek again saw Clarence and asked where his bike was; the older bike, too, had been stolen.

Leek surprised Clarence with a new bike. The boy’s mother cried with gratitude. Clarence now says he wants to be a policeman when he grows up.

Leek wasn’t just thoughtful and generous. He was intentional about getting to know the people on his beat.

He noticed Clarence and remembered him; he asked questions and followed up. He let Clarence know that he saw him and heard him, that he was not an anonymous poor kid in a rough neighborhood. Leek saw Clarence as an individual, and likewise, that is how their interaction caused Clarence to see Leek.

Leek’s concern about the theft of Clarence’s bike harkens back to the “broken windows” theory of policing that did much to make New York City safe under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The idea was that when police crack down on minor crimes like pan-handling and jay-walking, it transforms the culture from lawlessness into order.

An eight-year-old’s stolen bike is a petty theft, just as a broken window is not a crack house. Fix the broken window, and reduce the odds of the house becoming a haven for drugs. As the murder rate soars in cities across the country, it’s an approach to law enforcement worth revisiting.

Leek’s gift to Clarence is particularly poignant while the Black Lives Matter movement  demonizes — and endangers — police. To be sure, there are bad cops, just as there are bad citizens. Both should be punished under the rule of law. But their numbers should not be overestimated and should not detract from the vast majority of police who risk their lives and serve with professionalism, anymore than the criminal element should be taken to represent a community or racial group.

That brings me to a segment I heard on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America radio show. Bennett’s demeanor and erudite analysis contrast with the vitriol of most of talk radio. But even Bennett’s measured delivery cannot take away the ugliness of certain facts.

The Black Lives Matter movement recently held a protest — kept safe by a police escort — at the Minnesota State Fair, hours after a Houston policeman was gunned down. The protesters chanted: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!”.

Certainly “pigs” refers to police. What I had not previously understood is this: “pigs in a blanket” refers to cops in body bags. Notwithstanding the protest leader’s dissembling, the chant calls for the murder of police officers, pure and simple.

The chant does not distinguish between good cops and rogue cops: it calls for the murder of all cops. So I cannot help but think of Officer Leek and the 9/11 heroes when I contemplate the phrase.

And I think of eight-year-old Clarence. His life matters. Not because he is black. It matters for the same reason that all lives matter, because he is a human being created in God’s image. I am grateful for police such as Officer Leek who protect Clarence and all of us. I pray for their safety.

The Obama presidency was supposed to usher in an era of post-racial healing. Why, then, does President Obama not condemn the chant “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon”? His silence in the face of this call to violence does not promote racial healing, but rather the opposite.

Terrorists killed 215 blacks on 9/11; that number is dwarfed by the thousands of American blacks murdered by criminals annually. Showing support for those honorable police and first responders who seek to prevent and redress such tragedies demonstrates that black (and all other) lives truly matter.

Down Ticket Candidates Continue to Impress

The Republican Party of Kentucky held a fundraiser last night for all the state-wide candidates below Matt Bevin.  Bevin,  Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Congressman Brett Guthrie were guests of honor.

The event raised $250,000.  Not too shabby.  Donors had the choice of giving to the party or to the candidate.

I've written before about my friend Allison Ball, who is running for Treasurer, as well as Whitney Westerfield, who is running for Attorney General. Both are outstanding candidates.

Last night, I had the opportunity to meet the rest of the slate. Wow.  As McConnell pointed out, not that long ago the party had to dragoon people to run for these down-ticket races.  Now we have these stellar candidates; it bodes well for the future of the party.  Any of these people, down the road, would be well-suited to run for Congress, U.S. Senate or a governor.

Specifically, I am referring to Ryan Quarles (running for Commissioner of Agriculture); Mike Harmon (running for State Auditor); and Steve Knipper (running for Secretary of State).  They had my vote already. Now they will get some of my money. Each of these candidates impressed me as sharp, conservative, and real -- just genuinely nice people.

Quarles appears to be winning against a candidate who doesn't seem very bright. My son commented after he heard her Fancy Farm speech that it was the first time that he had heard someone (Quarles) criticized for being too well-educated. It struck him as ignorant. I've heard similar comments since.

Mike Harmon is running against Adam Edelen. I am going to try to watch that debate. Harmon has a great sense of humor and I expect he will do very well against Edelen.  Edelen, meanwhile, is telling people (even elected Republicans) that he plans to run against Sen. Rand Paul.  So he is using the position of Kentucky Auditor in the interim.  Lots of politicians use lots of offices for spring boards.  But to run for reelection when you know that you are already seeking the next office the following year seems slimey and opportunistic.

I was also impressed with Steve Knipper, who is running against Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes should be worried about this race coming off her 16 point loss to McConnell. Apparently she is.  Knipper noted that after Grimes learned he had worked in China for many years and had adopted five children from that country, Grimes decided it was necessary to take her first trip there to prove her bona fides on international trade.  Grimes recently took an introductory IT class; Knipper's background, coincidentally, is in IT. Kipper said he would welcome a debate with her on IT issues. Knipper's central point is that the Secretary of State, which is in charge of elections, registration of corporations and other areas requiring efficient and effective computer technology and software, is very similar to a chief technology officer or chief business officer of a company.  It is not a way station for the politician daughter of a politician who longs for higher political office.  How fun would it be to finish off the bad Alison once and for all and end the Lundergan dynasty?  That, in and of itself, warrants a contribution to Knipper.

The fate of these down-ticket candidates is to a large extent tied to that of Matt Bevin. Each is strong enough, however, that if (God forbid) Jack Conway wins, they could still win -- but only if properly funded. These candidates have disrupted their lives and put themselves out there to advance conservatism and the Republican Party of Kentucky.  Let's all do what we can to support them. Not everyone can write a big check, or any check. But we can all post a yard sign or walk a precinct and make some calls.

I Like Whitney Westerfield's Odds

Everyone knew the Kentucky Attorney General's race would be tough for Republicans. Gov. Steve Beshear's been shaking down people to give to his son Andy for long time and to great success. However, money is not everything, even in an election.

I have finally met Whitney Westerfield and was very impressed. He struck me as quite bright. And like the best lawyers, he is creative. He has an excellent grasp of the issues and a good political instinct. He's personable.

This is the only competitive AG race in the country this year, so the Republican Attorney General's Association is poised to spend several millions here. For that to happen, Whitney needs to raise his share.

Once RAGA gets involved, Beshear's fundraising advantage will be cancelled out. With a level playing field, this is a winnable race for Republicans; Kentucky is now a red state.

It's time for Republicans to dig deep and support him.  Andy Beshear does not have to be inevitable any more than Hillary Clinton needs to be inevitable. But the election is fast approaching. Whitney needs money yesterday.

For those Republicans who have not been energized by this election, you need to meet and then donate to Whitney. Likewise for my friend Allison Ball, who is running for Treasurer. It really encourages me about the future of the Republican Party of Kentucky with such strong candidates in the down-ticket races.

The Donald Channels Henry VIII

In case you missed my Courier-Journal column yesterday, here it is:

he narrative for this presidential election was supposed to be about which competing political dynasty would get to crown its heir.

This “inevitability” narrative is belied by the thousands who flock to hear Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Apparently Trump and Sanders did not get the memo about Bush and Clinton having a lock on the nomination.

Meanwhile, Bush and Clinton, like King Louis XVI or Tsar Nicholas II, are in denial. The excitement for Trump and Sanders reflects lack of enthusiasm for both heirs apparent. Both are waiting for their respective nemesis to self-destruct and for the peasants to wake up. It’s hard to see how that is a winning strategy, but we are nonetheless assured that Clinton and Bush remain as certain as death and taxes.

During the recent Republican debate, Jeb looked like he was having about as much fun as King George III reading the Declaration of Independence. Nor does Hillary seem to enjoy campaigning, evading reporters and questions about servers (and not the kind who pass canapés for Jerry Lundergan).

Jeb and Hillary give the impression that they are running due to a sense of duty sprung from a sense of entitlement. They convey no passion for the position they seek or pleasure in the process to obtain it. As candidates, they are joyless. Voters should do them the favor of sparing them the burden of governing.

Watching Clinton and Bush campaign harkens back to Sen. Teddy Kennedy’s failed candidacy and his interview with Roger Mudd in 1979. When asked why he wanted to be president, Kennedy stuttered and flailed as his chances evaporated. His famous last name was an insufficient justification for a presidential campaign. Nostalgia for Camelot and kinship in a political royal family was not enough.

Neither Jeb nor Hillary has self-destructed the way Kennedy did; there has been no dramatic moment when it all went wrong. There have been no dramatic moments whatsoever. Maybe that’s why the prospect of a Bush-Clinton election feels so stale. Regardless of how one views Bill Clinton, or Bush 41, or George W. Bush, America need not and should not recycle our leaders from the same few families. It’s the electoral equivalent of inbreeding.

Jeb enthusiasts argue that the presence of another Clinton on the ballot negates the dynasty issue for him. No doubt Hillary’s supporters give her the same assurance about Jeb. But two dynasties running against each other doesn’t take away the issue, it just robs the American voters of fresh blood.

It starts looking like the War of the Roses, with the Yorks fighting the Lancasters for the British throne. The War of the Roses ended with the establishment of the House of Tudor, which drew from the competing dynasties to start a new one. Maybe that’s why Trump, who has donated to both parties, is so optimistic about his prospects.

Donald Trump does resemble Henry (Tudor) VIII, starting with the strawberry blonde hair. There is a similar swagger, a similar propensity to flaunt wealth with glamorous excess, a refusal to be bound by rules, tradition or courtesy. Though he never used the term, Henry VIII attacked political correctness centuries before Trump took up that mantle.

Both Trump and Henry VIII appreciated beautiful women, which led to complicated marital histories. To be sure, Trump hasn’t decapitated any of his ex-wives. But he decrees “You’re fired!” with an executioner’s gusto.

And like you know who, Trump has even started taking on the Pope – says he needs to scare the Pope for his own good. As Hillary channels Eleanor Roosevelt, maybe Trump is channeling Henry VIII.

Perhaps that’s why Trump has seized upon illegal immigration as his signature issue: Henry VIII had no tolerance for those Scots who slipped in over the border.

As with Henry VIII, we never know what Trump will do or say from one day to the next. That unpredictability is exhilarating, and terrifying. It’s exactly the opposite of what we get from Jeb or Hillary. It keeps us mesmerized. The notion that Trump will make Jeb and Hillary look like grown-ups is not working. He just makes them look boring.

Trump’s rivals should emulate what he does well. He speaks bluntly about America’s challenges. He believes in American exceptionalism. He does not appease anyone. He has panache. He enjoys campaigning.

But we need a Man (or Woman) For All Seasons with wisdom and gravitas to stand up to him when he goes too far.

The Framers would not want us to pass the presidency between dynasties. Nor would they want to see us elect a president who styles himself as an autocrat. As the Israelites learned in the time of Samuel, think twice before you seek a king.

Why Won't Bevin Endorse Rand?

I have tried to respect Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment by not criticizing Matt Bevin.  He won the primary, and I will vote for him as our party's nominee.  The fact that I will vote straight ticket will make it easier.

Bevin's recent refusal to endorse Sen. Rand Paul's presidential bid bothers me enough that I will break the 11th Commandment.

Rand is our native son and Republicans here should back him, including Bevin.  It's a matter of loyalty to our own.

I was particularly disturbed that Bevin sought the opportunity to appear with Rand and then, when asked, declined to endorse Rand. It struck me as ungrateful and discourteous.

If Bevin is going to take the position that he will not endorse anyone, including Rand, then don't appear with Rand.  Indeed, I would be surprised if Rand invites him to appear with him again any time soon.

Is Bevin going to turn down endorsements, since he won't give any?

Bevin doesn't want to be beholden to anyone, and to some reasonable extent, that's laudable.  But independence, taken to an extreme, seems prideful.

That's fine that Bevin doesn't need our money; it frees us up to donate to our outstanding down-ticket candidates. However, Bevin refuses to take advice from longstanding Republicans who sincerely would like to help him win.

 Bevin's a smart guy, but he gives the impression that he thinks he is too smart to listen to anyone. That lack of humility may haunt him.  How will he ever get good people to work in a Bevin administration?

Rand Gets His Caucus!

The Central Committee of the Republican Party of Kentucky voted 114 to 37 to hold a caucus in 2016.  It took 98 votes to pass.

That removes the obstacle of Rand Paul's name appearing on the ballot twice, in violation of a Kentucky statute.  At least it removes that obstacle during the primary phase.

RPK Central Committee Requests Secret Ballot

Those members of the Republican Party of Kentucky Central Committee who oppose the caucus should be forced to go on the record. The request for a secret ballot was cowardly.

Leaders don't hid.

Give Rand His Caucus Already

Tomorrow the Central  Committee of the Republican Party of Kentucky will vote again on whether to adopt a caucus format for 2016.  This is necessary to allow Sen. Rand Paul to simultaneously run for president and senator.

Members of the Committee and are muttering about cost. They say they don't want the party to be stuck with the cost of the caucus. (In contrast to a caucus, the party does not have to pay to participate in a primary election.)

The notion that Rand is not good for the money is complete garbage. This is a small state and Kentuckians know Rand.  He is a man of integrity. If he says that he will pay for it and that the party won't get stuck with any costs, his word is his bond. I am appalled that anyone in the party would doubt him on this.

Yes, there was a snafu on the timing of the first round of money being transferred. Nonetheless, he is still good for the money. The party doesn't need the money yet. So why the fuss?

It's true that Rand's fundraising for his presidential campaign has been disappointing recently. That is not true in Kentucky. I went to a fundraiser for him a few months ago that raised $100,000 without the organizers even having to hunt down donors.

As a matter of integrity, Rand will honor his promise to the party. As a matter of political ability, he will be able to raise the money -- whatever the amount. Indeed, some members of the Committee appear intent on exaggerating the potential costs.

I find it very odd that party members want the money up front. When you build a house, you make payments based on the progress of the house; you don't pay the entire cost up front. Similarly, Rand is entitled to make payments as the party demonstrates that it is actually committed to going through with this thing.

It makes no difference whom one is supporting in the presidential primary. Rand Paul is a Kentuckian. Members of his own party should have his back at least to the extent that he can explore his viability as a presidential candidate.

Checking in on Bevin v. Conway

Louisvillians who attended Friday's GLI lunch are still talking about Matt Bevin's stellar performance. Some have said that Bevin is the best extemporaneous speaker they have ever seen.

Bevin contends that if elected, he will be the first Kentucky governor in a generation who is not beholden to anyone. That seems to imply that Bevin is willing to write a significant check to self-fund his campaign.  (He is said to be worth $38 million, $30 million of which is said to be liquid). This explains the curious lack of direct mail solicitations and invitations to Bevin fundraisers.

In addition, the Republican Governors' Association has the opportunity to play a big role in this race given the dearth of off-cycle elections.

That opens up fund-raising possibilites for the down-ticket candidates, who have been quick to seize that opportunity.

At this point, it feels like the race is essentially a toss-up. Bevin could not have asked for a more ideal opponent than Jack Conway. For some reason, the longer that Conway is in the public eye, the more detestable he becomes. He just doesn't wear well.  It's like his expiration date is almost up. Perhaps Conway really hasn't liked being Attorney General or really doesn't like to campaign.

Given the political environment at this point, I'd give the edge to Bevin.

ICYMI: My C-J Column on the Obamacare Tanning Tax

Thanks to the Courier-Journal for giving me permission to print this in its entirety. I chose this topic because it gives people who are not necessarily political -- young women -- a chance to consider the impact of tax policy on their day to day lives. mI was therefore pleased to see that this column was widely-shared on FaceBook. We conservatives need to be on the look-out for issues that appeal to people who don't think of themselves as conservative. That's how we grow the party.

Here's the column;

Democrats could not figure out a way to tax the sunshine, thank God. So they taxed the man-made equivalent: indoor tanning. That tax just turned 5 years old. It has burned consumers and small businesses across the country, including here.

The 10 percent federal tax on indoor tanning was one of the more bizarre inclusions in Obamacare. It generated lots of laughs at the time. Some called it the “Snooki tax” in homage to Jersey Shore. Some speculated that it was a passive-aggressive attack on House Speaker John Boehner’s tawny complexion. One congressman called it “racist” because of its disparate impact on the fair-skinned.

This tax was one of 21 in Obamacare, and one of the first to take effect. It was supposed to do two things: help fund healthcare for the previously uninsured, and reduce skin cancer by deterring indoor tanning. Both of those goals were problematic from the outset.

First, the tanning tax was projected to raise only a fraction of the revenue necessary to pay for Obamacare — pennies on the dollar. Obamacare will cost approximately $2trillion over 10 years. The tanning tax, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, was projected to raise $2.7 billion over that period.

It would never have been enough, even if the projected numbers had been accurate. They were not. Indeed, according to Forbes, the tax has generated only one-third of the revenue projected. Whoops! Look for big premium increases to make up for that shortfall.

Second, the goal of deterring people from indoor tanning smacks of paternalism, as do all sin taxes. Anyone who worries that tanning beds or outdoor tanning will cause skin cancer — which the industry disputes — has the freedom to not tan. Those adults who choose to tan have the same liberty interest. Whatever happened to that Democrat mantra: “my body, my choice”? Surely it applies more here than to the recently exposed atrocities of Planned-Parenthood doctors.

Then there is the issue of the government picking winners and losers. This tax was directed against a specific industry that the elite in power at the time disfavored. This tax replaced one that would have taxed Botox injections and breast augmentations. The only reason that indoor sun tanning is subject to a federal excise tax but Botox and breast augmentations are not is that the latter industries won the lobbying battle. That is, access to power rather than sound public policy dictated the tax imposed.

What bothers me most about the tanning bed tax is its disproportionate effect on women. Tanning customers stuck with the tax are overwhelmingly women: 75 percent. Seventy percent of tanning salons are owned by women. These are small business owners. Their employers, too, are overwhelmingly women: ninety-five percent. (Why, why do the Democrats keep waging a war on women?)

As was predicted at the time of its inclusion into Obamacare, the tax is rapidly killing the indoor tanning industry. Since Obamacare’s enactment, more than 9,000 tanning salons have closed nationwide. As a consequence, 76,000 jobs have been eliminated, according to the American Suntanning Association.

The numbers in Kentucky reflect that trend. Nearly 200 salons have closed here; 1,600 jobs have been lost as a result.

Those who oppose indoor tanning as supposed a way to reduce skin cancer must be delighted with the closing of all these tanning salons.

However, that cannot be squared with the stated rationale of the tax as a means to fund Obamacare for the uninsured. The tax is killing the very industry that it was designed to tap as a source of funds. Obamacare’s goals with respect to the tax are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

Congress is considering a one-page bill to repeal the tanning tax. One page: Nancy Pelosi won’t have to pass it to find out what’s in it, provided she’s willing to read the one page. Maybe someone can read it to her.

The bill has bipartisan support. It’s something that all members of the Kentucky delegation should support (and co-sponsor), because a homegrown Louisville-based company, Sun Tan City, needs it to maintain and expand its franchises.

This is no different than recent legislative efforts to help the hemp industry, or the bourbon industry or the coal industry. Our congressional delegation should look out for Kentucky companies and jobs.

Republicans do not have a veto-proof majority. That means we are stuck with Obamacare for the time being. It cannot be repealed anytime soon. What we can do in the meantime, however, is chip away at it. Let’s fix what we can fix now.

Even some Democrats recognize that the tanning tax was a bad idea that has not lived up to expectations. Kentucky jobs are at stake. Incremental improvement is better than nothing.