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.

A Few Quick Thoughts on the Debate

Carly Fiorina plainly belonged at the Big Boys' table, and she will be there next time as a result of her performance last night. The only question:  whom will she displace?  I like her better each time I see her.  She has an intellectual toughness that surpasses most if not all of the other candidates.

In the prime time debate, Ben Carson gained the most, particularly with his last two or three answers. His comments on race were brilliant.  He explained that he doesn't talk about race much because as a neurosurgeon, he looks at people's brains, which determines who they are way beyond the color of our skin. His comment that he would be fortunate if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee was humorously delivered, as was his closing remark that he was the only candidate to have removed half of a person's brain, with an aside that one would have thought that would have already been accomplished among politicians in D.C.

Time doesn't permit me to amplify, but Carson's comments are well worth a look for those who did not see the debate. The man is freaky smart, but humble.  He projects a decency and a sense of humor.  His personal attributes make up for any short-comings in not knowing the answer to Beltway wonk questions that most Americans wouldn't know either.

I thought Rand Paul won the fourth amendment exchange with Chris Christie. Good for Rand for bringing up The Hug. That needed to be said.  In fact, it should be said at every remaining debate in which Christie gets to participate. His opening salvo against pointing out Donald Trump's self-absorption was effective, coming on the heels of Trump's admission that he could not commit at this point to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee if he/she is not Trump.

The Donald. His exchange with Megan Kelly was unnecessary. His pattern is that he makes a good point that gets some applause or some laughter and he keeps going and going until he has crossed into the terrain of did you really just say that?

I was shocked that the New York Times reported that Ted Cruz had about the median amount of air time.  Cruz disappeared during the debate. There seemed to be an effort to freeze him out. He comported himself very well and yet did not seem to be in the mix.

Huckabee, as usual, was earnest and articulate.  His closing -- describing all the negative qualities that everyone assumed applied to the Donald, but then substituting Hillary for punch line -- was outstanding.

John Kasich was repetitive but had some good themes. His response to the gay marriage question was well formed -- not backing away from his "old fashioned" position, as he point it, that marriage is between a man and a woman, but also expressing unconditional love for others who disagree with him just as God has unconditional love for all of us.

It is interesting how little airplay that LGBT issues received during the debate, even though they ranked as number three on the Facebook poll (after race relations and the economy) as important issues for voters. Huckabee was asked a question about transgenders in the military, which he deftly swatted away with the more relevant point that he is more concerned with the soldiers protecting our nation's security than using them to make a social statement. Other than that remark, I don't recall anything else coming up about the topic that the most famous Republican transgendered spotlighted earlier this year.

The social issue with the most prominence was life. It was a recurring theme of many candidates, who seemed invigorated by the recent Planned Parenthood videos to go on the attack of pro-abortion forces.

I could write much more, but the bottom line is that last night's debate was perhaps the most riveting I have seen and the Republican field -- both in the primetime and "kiddie table" debates -- is quite strong.  I'm looking forward to the next round.

So Did You Go to Fancy Farm?

I took a pass, as apparently a lot of people did. My sense was that neither party was all that excited about going. That's because there is a dearth of excitement about each party's respective ticket.

My kids went, and their take was that Sen.Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gave the best speech.  They loved the selfie he gave to outgoing Gov. Steve Beshear. Payback for Beshear's tacky stunt last year.

As for those seeking office this year, many thought Allison Joy Ball, Republican candidate for Treasurer, gave a very good speech.  Allison is a consistently good communicator. She is also probably the smartest candidate running for state-wide office this year. She is a real conservative, a nice person and a fighter. Treasurer is sort of a dumb office; it is a waste of her talents. But it is a good place for Allison to get some experience in public service to set her up for a more substantive office in the future.

From what my kids and others tell me, the crowd was mystified by Matt Bevin's speech. The Pledge of Allegiance is a beautiful thing. I am all for it. However, requesting everyone to say it -- not at the beginning of the event, but rather at the beginning of Bevin's speech -- is just odd.

It was also peculiar, and rather petulant, for Bevin to come to Fancy Farm and complain about the coarseness of politics, the silliness of the attacks, and otherwise lecture his audience like he's Miss Manners. Does Bevin think we don't remember his speech last year?   If he's had an epiphany about what should constitute the tone of political discourse, than why go to Fancy Farm at all?

Jack Conway continues his downward spiral as a candidate. The most remarkable thing about Conway is that his talent for campaigning is getting worse over time, with each passing election. That said, he may still win.

I will vote for Bevin. Indeed, I will vote straight ticket. But as I look at our choices for governor, I am reminded of all those many lists in which Kentucky comes in near the bottom. (Thank God for Mississippi).  I am hoping that Bevin can step it up and generate some enthusiasm and a sense of optimism that Kentucky can do better.

Dumbest Ad Ever

The Kentucky Democratic Party is running an ad against candidate for Attorney General Whitney Westerfield that is far and away the stupidest political ad I've ever seen.

Ostensibly it's about Westerfield's record as an assistant commonwealth attorney. In reality, it is an assault on his manhood because he gets an occasional pedicure.  That's supremely hypocritical, coming from the party that claims to be all about inclusiveness and tolerance for every iteration of lifestyle.

Democrats brought us the Metrosexual; a dude can't get much more Metrosexual than getting a pedicure.

Any ad that includes close up shots of a man's feet is just wrong on so many levels.  Feet are gross. Male feet are particularly gross, pedicure or not. That's why "mandals" are never a good idea.

Voters didn't need to know that Westerfield gets pedicures. It is too much information. They will not reward the Democrats for the revelation.

For Democrats to comment on someone's choice of personal grooming shows how weak on substantive ideas that party has become. They are utterly vacuous.

RIP. David Roth

Kentucky Opera General Manager David Roth's untimely passing is a huge loss to the Louisville arts community and to those of us who were privileged to count his a friend.

David was an artist entrepreneur. He exposed us to new operas that had never been performed here, balanced with old favorites. With his background in accounting, David squeezed quarters from nickels. He demonstrated that an arts organization, through careful stewardship, can stay in the black. This made us want to dig deeper and work harder to help him build Kentucky Opera into the outstanding regional company that is his legacy.

Most importantly, David was a wonderful human being. He had the remarkable ability to make me feel like he was overjoyed to see me. That wasn't specific to me:  I knew that he made everyone he met the feel the same way, and that is a rare attribute.

He and Bryce and his family and friends are in our prayers.

Congrats Mike Biagi

Mike Biagi has been named Chair of the Republican Party of Kentucky, replacing Steve Robertson (who is going to work in Frost Brown Todd's lobbying arm).

Mike was a McConnell Field Director, and is a great guy. He has a good political instinct and strikes me as easy to work with.  I expect big things of him in his new position and wish him all the best.

And thanks to Steve for all of his hard work over the years. The state of the Kentucky Republican Party is much improved over when we first arrived here in 1996, though much work remains.  Onward!

Latest C-J Column: Obama and the KY Clerks

Today's column makes an unexpected analogy:  Obama and the KY clerks who won't issue licenses for same sex marriages.  Here's the link. Below is the online version, reprinted with permission of the C-J.  Note that the online version contains several paragraphs towards the end that got cut from the print version;

They have more in common than either would expect: President Barack Obama and those Kentucky clerks who refuse to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. In refusing to do their jobs (Obama with respect to immigration), both are behaving lawlessly. Both are violating the oaths they took.

Oddly, the people who applaud Obama's refusal to enforce our immigration laws are irate at the county clerks who refuse to issue the marriage licenses to gays. However, a refusal to do one's duty as an elected official is lawless, regardless of the issue or reason. Maybe the clerks should change their messaging and declare their offices "sanctuaries."

I am slightly more sympathetic to the county clerks; the Supreme Court's pronouncement of a new constitutional right to gay marriage fundamentally changed the nature of their duties. Arguably some of these clerks might not have run for their position had they known that they would be compelled to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples. But the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodgespercolated for years. Those who were surprised at the outcome certainly knew that it was a possibility.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | Keep Alexander Hamilton on bill

Going forward, however, no candidate for county clerk can claim unfair surprise. Like it or not, gay marriage is now the law of the land. Those who feel it would violate their conscience to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple should not seek the office.

In refusing to perform their duty but accepting their salary, the recalcitrant clerks are exercising their religious beliefs on the cheap and easy. The more honorable course would be to resign.

Unlike the clerks, Obama's refusal to enforce our nation's immigration laws through deportations is not based on his religious convictions. He just thinks he's smarter and knows better. He therefore uses executive orders to ignore those laws of which he disapproves. But like the clerks, Obama justifies his inaction as the right thing to do; he follows his moral compass rather than the laws he swore to uphold.

The clerks and Obama both serve in the executive branch of government, albeit at very different levels. Officials in the executive branch cannot make law, like the legislature, or interpret law, like the judiciary; their job is to execute the laws the other branches have made — as in apply the law, enforce it, carry it out. If they do not like the law and want to change it, they are in the wrong branch.

Obama's dereliction of duty — and the example it sets — has graver consequences than that of the clerks. No one has died as a result of inaction by the clerks. The Supreme Court has decreed that gay marriage is a constitutional right, and violation of a constitutional right is a serious matter. But it is not the same as seeing your child shot by an illegal alien and holding her while she dies, as happened in the "sanctuary city" of San Francisco recently.

Francisco Sanchez, the man who confessed to murdering Katie Steinle on the San Francisco pier earlier this month, has an extensive criminal history — seven felonies — and had been deported to Mexico five times. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco attract people like Sanchez because they know that it's city policy to shelter illegal immigrants from deportation; Sanchez admitted as much to a reporter.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | GOP should support OTC birth control

San Francisco's sheriff and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are blaming each other for Sanchez being free to commit a murder. That finger pointing misses the larger truth. The proliferation of sanctuary cities is the logical extension of the Obama administration's refusal to enforce the immigration laws: the fish rots from the head.

There are now 200 sanctuary cities. The rationale for the policy is to prevent families from being torn apart; children born to illegal immigrants on American soil are U.S. citizens automatically, but their parents are not. And to be sure, Sanchez is by no means representative of all illegal immigrants. The unintended consequence of that compassionate impulse to provide sanctuary from deportation is that Katie Steinle's family has been torn apart.

Sanctuary cities, Obama's non-enforcement, and the rogue county clerks, each make a mockery of the notion of the "law-abiding citizen." In days of yore, abiding by the law was something a citizen just did, and expected others to do or else face punishment. It was part of being a responsible adult, a norm parents taught children. The corollary was that public officials were expected to honor their oaths and enforce the law, all the laws.

When did it become respectable to obey and enforce only the laws one likes? Perhaps the most devastating legacy of Obama will be this trickle-down lawlessness.

.

Kentucky 45th in Fiscal Condition

George Mason University's Mercatus Center has done a 50 state survey of state financial conditions.  Kentucky falls near the bottom at 45th. No surprise there.

Mercatus came up with a composite score based on five different variables: cash solvency for short term funding; budget solvency; long run solvency; service level solvency; and trust fund solvency.

The question becomes:  what do Jack Conway and Matt Bevin propose to do about it?

Any business contemplating relocating would look to this survey, or one like it, to evaluate the fiscal health of a state.  No one wants to move a business to a state that is likely to default, or face a massive tax hike. So the ability of Kentucky to manage its finances sensibly has real-world consequences for employment -- and for making Kentucky a place where our children want to remain as adults.

Judicial Nominations Update

Politico has a good read on the status of judicial nominations now that Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader.  Lots of accusations about why the pace of confirmation is so slow.

This is an issue that has implications for Kentucky. as we have several vacancies in the district courts and one on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

To be sure, the president has wide latitude on whom he chooses to nominate. However, I take comfort in knowing that McConnell will ensure that the Senate makes a searching inquiry of each nominee. The Senate has that right and indeed duty.

Obama's days in office are drawing to a close, thank God. But the judges he nominates, if confirmed, will have life tenure. Their impact will reach far into the future and affect the daily lives of numerous Americans. It is therefore important that Republicans take the time to look closely at these nominees.