Sunday, April 24, 2016
Kentucky GOP Convention a Model of Efficiency
This was my first Kentucky Republican Convention, and I'd highly recommend it to Republicans here who want to get more involved. It's a great cross-section of people of different backgrounds and ages who come together because of our love for liberty and our abhorrence of big government.
In contrast to many other states, our convention is well-run and efficient -- something conservatives value. State Chair Mac Brown, presiding over his first convention, managed to both keep the trains running on time and deal respectfully with malcontents and the inevitable snafus that happen in an undertaking this large.
The most tedious aspect was ascertaining the credentials of the approximately 500 state delegates, county by county. But one fact emerged from that process that we need to redress: sadly, there are still many counties in Kentucky that had no Republican representation whatsoever. Not a single delegate.
It's true that in our recent caucus, the party could not hold a caucus in 10 of the 120 counties due to lack of volunteers in that county. That we could hold caucuses in 110 counties is itself a remarkable feat. This dovetails with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell winning reelection by carrying some counties in Eastern Kentucky that he has never before carried -- a bucket list item for him. Most of these counties similarly voted for Gov. Matt Bevin.
For this change in voting patterns in Eastern Kentucky, we can thank President Barack Obama and his war on coal. He has been the best thing to ever happen to the Republican Party of Kentucky. Indeed, our registration has outpaced Democrats by a 13 to 1 margin during the Obama years.
Despite that improvement, some counties in Eastern Kentucky still do not have a GOP grassroots presence. But there are conservatives in those counties who voted Republican. Not many, but some.
And to those voters, there is an opportunity to get involved in the state party. Yesterday, for example, they could have been state delegates; that provides a chance to vote on the Kentucky Republican Party's platform as well as the delegates who will represent us at the national convention.
The party is welcoming to first-time voters, as my son and his friend both experienced as delegates. So to those high school seniors in Eastern Kentucky who want a path to prosperity and want to help change the direction of the Commonwealth and the nation, the Republican party is a place that will welcome your ideas and energy.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
ICYMI: Political Correctness hits Derby
Here's my latest column from the Courier-Journal. This one seems to have struck a nerve; it was shared on FaceBook nearly two thousand times, and was sent to Dartmouth and at least one former member of its Board of Trustees:
The campus guardians of political correctness have eyed the Kentucky Derby and judged it offensive. At Dartmouth College, the Kappa Delta Epsilon sorority has canceled its Derby party after some Dartmouth students called it racist and elitist.
Last year, campus Black Lives Matter protested outside the invitation-only party. According to the Washington Times, “Protesters held signs declaring ‘black rage’ and repeated chants of ‘What is Derby? It’s the face of genocide,’ and ‘What is Derby? It’s the face of police brutality.’”
After consulting the protesters and the Dartmouth Afro-American society, the sorority recently voted to curtail the Derby theme for this year’s spring party. The sorority’s vice president explained her understanding that Derby is “related to pre-war southern culture.” She parroted the narrative that Derby connotes antebellum plantations.
However, as any Kentuckian with a Derby glass handy can confirm, the first Derby was not held until 1875 — a decade after the Civil War ended. And Kentucky never joined the Confederacy; it’s as much midwestern as southern.
For $69,000 a year to attend Dartmouth, one would expect students at this Ivy League school to know these basics of history and geography. Or at least to Google before making their protest signs.
There is a difference between a Klansman’s hood and a Derby hat. This simple distinction escapes the bullies of censorship and conformity who got the party canceled. Likewise for the sorority members who caved.
The protesters claim the Kentucky Derby is offensive. But the only offense here is to Louisvillians and others slandered as racists for celebrating this premier sports event.
Surely those students who found the party theme offensive could have declined the invitation. It wasn’t a mandatory event. And this has nothing to do with campuses as “safe places.” It’s about freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Plainly, the parents of these students never read them the story of Peter and the Wolf. Racial injustice occurs, as does genocide. But equating Derby with genocide has no basis in history, no basis in reality. The hysterical exaggeration at Dartmouth takes serious issues and treats them dishonestly. The allegations are so silly as to trivialize those issues the protesters seek to publicize.
CHECK OUT: All things Kentucky Derby
It’s true that some Kentuckians once, before the first Derby, owned slaves. But in Kentucky, our log cabins were more numerous and hold more significance than our plantations.
William Faulkner — who knew a thing or two about plantations — recognized this when he covered the Derby in 1955 for Sports Illustrated. He described Lincoln’s birthplace, the “ancient one-room cabin in which the babe first saw light.” He imagined Lincoln “speaking into the scene of his own nativity the simple and matchless prose with which he reminded us of our duties and responsibilities if we wished to continue as a nation.”
Faulkner also observed the important role that African-Americans played in the thoroughbred industry
Indeed, Oliver Lewis, an African-American jockey from Fayette County, won Derby No.1 on Aristides.
Of the first 28 Derby winners,15 were ridden by black jockeys. Regrettably, that changed over time as the Jim Crow laws caused many blacks to move north. The fact remains, however, that African-Americans are indispensable to the illustrious history of the Kentucky Derby. This is a historic accomplishment of which the Black Lives Matter group at Dartmouth should be proud. Instead of protesting Derby, they should celebrate it — as do the many black celebrities who come to Derby year after year.
Alas, the Dartmouth KDE’s are replacing the Derby party with a Woodstock party. Incredibly, they say Woodstock better represents their values. Apparently their history classes omitted mention of hard drug use, sexual promiscuity and the three people who died at Woodstock. Instead, these students think Woodstock was just about peace, love and music.
Yet in some ways, Woodstock’s an apt theme this year as two aging hippies wrestle for the Democrat presidential nomination. Bernie Sander’s wife slept in a tent at Woodstock; Hillary Clinton tried to earmark federal money for a Woodstock museum.
Ironically, Woodstock and Derby have more in common than the Dartmouth coeds might expect.
Hunter S. Thompson’s essay, “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved”, could describe Woodstock: The infield “will be jammed with people; fifty thousand or so, and most of them staggering drunk. It’s a fantastic scene — thousands of people fainting, crying, copulating, trampling each other and fighting with broken whiskey bottles.”
Now imagine replacing the mint juleps with LSD and heroin. What could go wrong?
Perhaps the Dartmouth KDEs didn’t mind dumping the Derby theme because they are on probation and the party would have to be dry: mint juleps without bourbon. Now that’s a legitimate reason to cancel a Derby party. Certainly a better reason than cowering before the political correctness vigilantes.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
My CJ Column: Trump's Supporters Are Not All Crackers
Reprinted with permission of the Courier-Journal:
Donald Trump was not my first choice, or even my fifth choice. I nonetheless take issue with thenarrative that his supporters are all ignorant bigots.I understand why many oppose Trump and are even repelled by him, but I caution his detractors when they rant “how can these people vote for him?” to consider that some, maybe many of “these people” are our friends, neighbors and coworkers.
I observed Trump voters recently while spending the day volunteering for Kentucky’s Republican caucus. Given Trump’s win, more of the hundreds of Republicans whom I encountered voted for Trump than anyone else.
I did not see any white supremacists. These were normal Louisvillians of all different ages and walks of life. Most were pleasant, patient with the delays, and thanked me for volunteering. They seemed optimistic, not angry. None of these people looked the type to riot or throw a punch.
My wish for Trump is that he become worthy of these supporters. He could start by doing the following:
1. Disavow violence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gave Trump this advice. But then Trump warned of “riots” if he comes close but falls short of the requisite number of delegates. Trump fans note that Trump did not call for riots - he just predicted them. That’s too cute by half. Lest there be any confusion that his comments were made with a wink and a nod, Trump needs to be very clear to his more aggressive supporters: insist that they refrain from violence, no matter how the left baits them.
2. Say “You’re fired.” Trump should get rid of his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Video shows Lewandowski literally manhandling Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Fields tweeted a picture of the bruise that resulted. Then video at an Arizona rally this past weekend appeared to show Lewendoski grab the collar of a protester. The Trump campaign has denied the allegations.
Lewandowski is not the sort of talent Trump should retain; at best he’s a distraction. Cut him loose.
3. Say “You’re hired.” The presidency is too big a job for one man. Great presidents surround themselves with smart, serious people of impeccable integrity. Trump can reassure the wary by telling us, now, whom he would select for his cabinet. Yes, he’s running as the outsider. But if he wins, someone will have to actually run the government. It won’t be enough to just bloviate: someone must make sure that the laws are faithfully executed.
If Trump could persuade credible people to serve with him and identify them now, he would improve not only his odds of winning, but his prospects for successfully governing as well.
4. Hit the (briefing) books. Trump’s a smart, well-educated man. It’s said he has a tremendous work ethic and memory. If he chose to do so, he could quickly grasp the nuances of the many issues that will confront the next president.
As the campaign has dragged on, however, his mastery of policy has not appeared to increase. Sure, he takes pride in not being a professional politician. His lack of wonkishness is part of his charm. However, voters are entitled to some specifics as to how he would “make American great again.” One would think he would tire of repeating the same platitudes and would add some detail just to change it up.
Trump talks about the elites looking down on us. It’s a powerful point because it’s true. But by failing to give specifics, Trump is condescending in his own way. Talk to us like adults. We can handle the truth.
5. Renounce Bigotry. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, but at this point I remain unconvinced that Trump is a racist, notwithstanding his interview with Jake Tapper, in which he failed to disavow David Duke.
Ben Carson, for whom I have great respect, spent a lot of time with Trump this past year. Surely Carson would have discerned if Trump is a bigot. Carson would not haveendorsed Trump if he thought Trump is truly a racist.
Likewise, Bill Clinton would not have attended Trump’s wedding if he thought Trump was a racist. Trump has been in the public eye far too long to have kept racist beliefs secret. The guy is not known for his filter, after all.
Beyond just condemning the Klan, Trump should emulate Sen. Rand Paul’s efforts to grow the Republican Party by reaching out to minorities and demonstrating how conservative policies can help people escape poverty in a way that liberalism has failed to accomplish.
6. Pray. Many evangelicals are horrified at Trump’s statement that he has neverasked God for forgiveness. Imagine if he did. A sanctified Trump could be a powerful force for good. Hard to fathom? Sound improbable? So was an empty tomb on Easter Sunday.
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Republicans Should Accept Possibility of Trump Nomination
“I didn’t realize this was in question. Behaves like a racist, speaks like a racist…of course [Donald Trump] is a racist,” tweeted New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio last night.
If de Blasio’s Tweet is accurate, it should come as a major surprise that last Friday, Dr. Ben Carson endorsed Donald Trump for President. If Trump is really a racist bigot as portrayed by de Blasio, why would Dr. Carson, an African American, support him?
It’s true that a small fraction of Trump’s supporters are associated with racial hate groups, but is that any worse than when, say, the terrorist group Hamas endorsed Obama in 2008? Perhaps Trump hasn't done enough to distance himself from his most rogue supporters, but at least he doesn't refer to their endorsements as “flattering,” as David Axelrod did Hamas’s.
The reality is that the majority of Trump supporters are our own friends and neighbors. As a high school senior, I know many young people who support Trump in addition to the countless adults I know that do as well. In full disclosure, I caucused for Senator Rubio, but I understand that realistically Trump will more than likely be the Republican nominee.
I attended Trump’s Louisville rally, mostly out of curiosity, and I left with a different perspective on Trump’s supporters. The majority of attendees at the rally appeared to be blue collar workers, exactly the demographic on which Hillary relied in 2008 and would need in a general election. I also saw business professionals, women, and minorities. Most of the attendees were polite and well behaved.
Of my friends who lean moderate, in the event of a Hillary vs. Trump election, I know several who say they will abstain, a few who will vote for Trump, but none who will vote for Hillary. To say that Trump couldn't win a general election is inaccurate.
Carson’s endorsement received surprisingly little media attention, especially compared to Chris Christie’s endorsement. I’ve never been particularly drawn to Christie; however, I deeply respect Dr. Carson as an intelligent, thoughtful, and faithful man. Carson is someone whom almost everyone respects, even if he wasn’t one’s first choice candidate, whereas in my experience most people dislike Christie outside of his loyal network of supporters. I believe Carson’s endorsement is a game changer in this election.
This election cycle has played out differently than anyone could have expected, except maybe the Donald himself. It’s difficult to know where exactly Trump stands, but I think Bill Bennet said it best when he compared this election to a game of Russian roulette: with Hillary, all six chambers are loaded, but with Trump, only three are.
It’s time for Republicans to accept that Trump will likely be our nominee. A brokered convention may be the establishment’s only hope for installing a more predictable nominee, but doing so would prove disastrous for our party. It would disenfranchise nearly half of the Republican primary electorate and make party unity all but impossible.
In 2015, Kentucky Republicans faced a four way primary that became inflamed with personal accusations and mud slinging, but still managed to unite behind Matt Bevin who went on to successfully take the Governor’s Mansion and has proven an excellent governor thus far. Trump, like Bevin, may not be the first choice for the many Republicans, but if he is the nominee, we must unite behind him.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
McConnell Right on SCOTUS Nominee
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell heads to the White House today to get lectured by President Barack Obama on why Republicans should let him nominate a liberal to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
My Courier-Journal column explains why McConnell is right to resist. Reprinted with permission of the Courier-Journal and available in hard-copy tomorrow:
It was one of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s finest moments. Just an hour after the unexpected passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed, McConnell issued a statement that “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
The swiftness and decisiveness of McConnell’s announcement eased the sting many felt after the loss of the justice who was the intellectual and rhetorical leader of the originalist movement, that is, interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and not what one wants it to mean.
Scalia was so reliable. He didn’t “grow” into his job and he didn’t “evolve.” Rather, he relentlessly adhered to textualist principles.
And McConnell’s resolute response to Scalia’s death honored the justice’s legacy by preventing — at least for now — his accomplishments from being undone.
In addition to refusing to confirm an Obama nominee before the election, Republicans should not hold any confirmation hearings. Nor should they meet with any nominee, regardless of whom Obama proposes. Even if the nominee is a member of a coveted voting block.
This is a question of timing, not qualifications. It would be impolite to the nominee and disingenuous to the country to pretend otherwise by holding hearings or “meet and greets” with senators. It’s not nice to lead people on.
And again, it’s not about the nominee. It’s about giving Americans the opportunity to pick the president they want to fill this swing vote seat on the court.
That’s what then-Sen. Joe Biden maintained in 1992: the president should not put forward a Supreme Court nominee in an election year, and if he does, the Senate should “seriously consider” not holding hearings on the nominee.
Democrats complain that McConnell’s refusal to hold a vote on anyone Obama nominates to replace Scalia is nothing but the raw exercise of power. There is some truth to that. However, that’s the nature of checks and balances. It’s one check the framers put in place to limit the president’s powers and prevent him from becoming a despot.
Obama whines that our Constitution gives him the power to nominate a justice and the Senate the duty to give “advice and consent.” McConnell, on behalf of the Senate majority, has indeed advised the president not to nominate anyone before the upcoming election. And he has advised the president that the Senate will not consent to that nominee now, irrespective of whom he nominates.
The Senate has not abdicated its duty. Obama just doesn’t like how it has done its duty. The Constitution does not require that the Senate act only in response to a president’s nomination. Indeed, the word “advice,” appearing before the word “consent” in the Constitutional text, indicates the Senate’s power to give advice to the president before any nomination occurs, including advice as to the timing of the nomination.
What’s the harm in leaving the number of justices at eight for now? An even number creates the possibility that the court might divide evenly, but that is not unprecedented or inconsistent with the framers’ intent. To the contrary, Congress in 1789 set the number of justices at six.
Worst case scenario: Hillary Clinton gets elected and nominates a liberal to become justice, and Democrats regain the Senate and confirm her nominee. Yet if Republicans cave and consent to some supposed “moderate” nominee by Obama, the ideological balance of the court still tips. Either way, the swing vote is lost.
The only hope for keeping a Supreme Court that respects the actual text of the Constitution is for Republicans to wait, elect a Republican president and keep a majority in the Senate.
That makes this the most important election in at least a generation. It is worth the fight.
To win it, Republicans need to stand united behind McConnell. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who is in a tough reelection fight, was smart to quickly back McConnell. Likewise for Republican presidential candidates.
McConnell is scheduled to meet Obama at the White House on Tuesday (after this column is filed). Doubtless, Obama will try to persuade McConnell to stop being an “obstructionist.” Obama will complain that Republicans are the party of “no.” He may toss out names of well-qualified nominees, maybe some “moderates” (translate: RINOs) as a “compromise” in sheep’s clothing.
We’ve watched helplessly as Obama has run roughshod over the Constitution. This president who has used executive orders to evade and erode the separation of powers now wants to pick a justice to interpret the Constitution he has repeatedly flouted.
McConnell’s refusal to hold a pre-election vote on an Obama nominee buys a little time for Americans to save this country from the slow rot of lawlessness. Let’s not waste this reprieve.
Bridget Bush is a Louisville attorney and founder of Elephants in the Bluegrass blog. Her column appears every third Wednesday in the Courier-Journal.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Informed Consent as Pretext
Imagine this scenario: Liberals, motivated by a desire to save lives, impose a requirement that anyone who wants to buy a gun must first meet with a psychiatrist, 24 hours before the gun sale can take place. (After all, we don't want crazy people buying gun, and we want to be sure people understand the risk of gun ownership.)
Faced with a backlash about the lack of psychiatrists in rural Kentucky, Liberal legislators modify the proposed law so that the mandatory consult with the shrink can take place by Skype.
Conservatives would protest that such a law was an unconstitutional ruse to make gun ownership more difficult -- an infringement on the second amendment right to bear arms.
This is essentially what Republicans have done in Frankfort, albeit with a different constitutional right.
Roe v. Wade is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, right up there with Dred Scott (and similar in logic). I do not believe that the constitution gives a woman the right to kill her unborn child. To the contrary, I think that child has its own rights under the constitution.
But nine guys in black robes have held otherwise. It is the law of the land for now. I'd like to see that changed, either by the Court overruling itself or by constitutional amendment. However, until that occurs, respect for rule of law requires that we not undermine the woman's constitutional right to an abortion so long as that remains a constitutional right.
I therefore disagree with what Republicans have done in Frankfort with their so-called "informed consent" bill. As amended, a woman who wants an abortion must have a consult with a doctor by video chat or in-person. The video option was added when it was pointed out that the bill would be most onerous for rural women.
What on earth can the doctor or medical provider tell the woman that cannot be told the day of the abortion? This is just a delay tactic, an obstacle and impediment to the abortion taking place.
I suspect the real motivation behind the bill is the hope that some women, forced to "sleep on it," might change their minds about having the abortion altogether. That would save the life of a child -- certainly a good thing.
Proponents of gun control are similarly motivated to save lives by making the exercise of a constitutional right more onerous.
In both circumstances, the rule of law is undermined. That is a very serious issue, because the rule of law is the linchpin of our democracy. It protects our freedom.
So the informed consent bill, in my view, was well-intentioned but nonetheless a mistake.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Flashback on Rand Paul Accolades
Politico has catalogued some of the many instances in which media waxed poetic about how fascinating Sen. Rand Paul is, and how he would inevitably get the Republican nomination and then win the general election.
It's a good reminder of why it made sense for Paul to seek and RPK to agree to the caucus:
Take, for example, these comments -- not from Republican fans:
“Rand Paul will win the whole thing because he can win Iowa, New Hampshire, he can win South Carolina, and he's the only candidate you listed there that can win all three.” (Chris Matthews, Real Clear Politics, November 2, 2013)
“If the GOP want to defeat Clinton next fall, they should turn to the only Republican whose buzz rivals hers: Rand Paul.” (Brian O’Connor, the New Republic, April 13, 2015)
“If he announces, he’ll be considered a first-tier candidate.” (James Carville, Vogue, September 16, 2013)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)