I've been candid on this site about my mixed feeling towards Secretary of State Trey Grayson's (R) re-election hopes. While I genuinely like and respect Trey and think he's done a good job in his position, I have been concerned about advancing the political career of the man who I believe may very well be Steve Beshear's (D) 2011 opponent or the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010 if Senator Bunning (R) chooses not to seek another term.
I gave this a lot of thought over the past few weeks and finally found some clarity last night, so I wanted to share that for whatever it's worth.
First of all, I find the recent attacks on Trey by some Democrats to be very disappointing. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of Trey's handing of his job, but attempts to paint him as corrupt for having taken $150 from a Fletcher-indictee or having taken advantage of a man on his death bed is offensive to me. Those are the smears that we've come to expect from Governor Fletcher (R) and his crew, not from our side. Aside from them being untrue (in my opinion), I think -- more importantly -- they're counter-productive. Those attacks don't speak to any failures in his job, they don't highlight some hypocrisy in his public positions, nor are they evidence of criminality. In my opinion, they're not germane to the race and simply an attempt to smear a candidate in hopes of defeating him.
Not only is Trey undeserving of such smears, they're also unnecessary. This contest is a real race and internal polling completed last week -- that I've learned about first-hand -- shows Trey's lead to be at the margin of error and he's polling well-under 40%. Trey can be defeated legitimately, without resorting to such gutter tactics.
But this begs the question whether Trey deserves to be defeated, and this is what I've spent a lot of time thinking about since it's the only competitive race on the ballot. I'm convinced that Democrats do need to make a 110% effort to defeat Trey, and for reasons concerning his job, not the secondary issues like whether he'll defeat us down the road.
For me, the most difficult time of my political career were those 37 days spent in Florida during the 2000 presidential recount as one of Vice President Gore's campaign staffers, being one of the original 50 or so staffers that were flown from Nashville to Florida on the campaign plane in the early morning hours the day after the election. For the next five weeks, I split my time between Fort Myers and Miami. I'm not going to rehash the criticisms that I have of the recount itself. The history is what it is and there's no point in arguing it.
The reason that I raise Florida is the acknowledgment of the awesome power each state's top elections official holds when it comes to handling the outcomes of those razor-thin contested elections. In Florida, as we all know well, Katherine Harris (R) held that post, and during those 37 days there were numerous occasions when she was forced to make crucial decisions during the recount where the law was not particularly clear or where it provided her with some amount of discretion as to how to handle issues, or the time frames involved. Naturally, in each case, her choice was the one that most benefited the Bush team. If she was a Democrat, those calls would have gone the other way. I understand that. But there's no doubt in my mind that Katherine Harris -- by far -- had the most influence over the recount, and properly so.
This brings me back to Trey.
In the mid 1990s, Trey made a decision to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans. It was a real loss (and failure) for Democrats and a coup for Senator McConnell (R) and the rest of Kentucky Republicans. Trey took advantage of the shifting political winds and made the most of that move, and today he's a Secretary of State seeking re-election and it's hard not to believe he'll have a long political career ahead of him. Trey is also a McConnell protege, which is a good thing to be if you're a Kentucky Republican.
But this made me think about the fact that next year is not only presidential year, but it's one which is shaping-up to be a bruising re-election for McConnell, and one where Kentucky Democrats are likely to take a very serious run at the state Senate as well as a couple of Republican-held congressional seats. Keep in mind that not only was President Bush elected by that 500+ vote margin in Florida in 2000, but control of the U.S. Senate last year fell to Democrats thanks to Jon Tester's (D) 3,000 vote margin in Montana and Jim Webb's (D) 7,000 vote margin in Virginia (out of 2.3 million votes cast). That could very well happen again next year.
And that gets me to the meat of this question.
Who do I want as the state's top election official during next year's races? If McConnell's re-election (or even the presidential race) comes down to a few thousand votes, who do I want making the calls on election challenges or provisional ballots or when to certify a race or how to manage a recount at the top of the ticket? Is there any doubt that Trey -- like Katherine Harris -- will provide the Republican Party with an advantage at every possible turn within his legitimate power as Secretary of State? I have no doubt.
Keep in mind that Kentucky has already seen one example of how this during Trey's tenure: the attempt to seat Indiana resident Dana Seum Stephenson (R) as a Kentucky state senator -- until the Supreme Court ruled her ineligible. Thankfully, Democrats now hold that seat. But imagine if that was over McConnell's seat or, though unlikely, if the presidency hung in the balance. How would Democrats feel about that scenario?
And on another substantive note -- while I have no quarrels with Trey's job as Secretary of State -- and believe he executed his duties faithfully (Seum Stephenson notwithstanding) and has done a good job, I have to ask why has there been little or no progress on things like paper trails for electronic voting machines, early voting, easier registration requirements, or campaign finance reform, among other issues? These are relevant issues I raised a year ago (see here and here) about Trey's performance after four years in office. Why hasn't more been done?
Finally, there's the issue of Trey's opponent, Bruce Hendrickson (D).
I don't know Hendrickson and don't believe I've ever met him. I also didn't vote for him in the May primary. But a number of people whose opinions I trust and respect tell me Hendrickson is a thoughtful and competent person, a teacher, a former local official, and someone who would do an honest and ethical job as the state's top elections official. For me, that's all I need to know.
This has been a tough issue for me because I do have a great of respect for Trey, and while I am a committed Democrat, I don't believe all Republicans are evil. I think we (Democrats) do ourselves an injustice to shriek at every Republican all the time, not to mention lose a great deal of credibility when we do. Some Republicans are bad people, like Governor Fletcher. Others like Trey and House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover (R) are solid public servants and it's hard not to like and respect them. But it is impossible to separate Trey's political affiliation, or his close relationship with McConnell, from his job as the state's top elections official. You can't simply remove a thread from that quilt and ignore it. Trey made a decision to be a Republican and that has consequences today when things aren't so rosy for the GOP.
We head into the crucial 2008 elections as a country badly divided on many things and we've seen too many razor-close elections that have determined which party controls Congress, who sits in the Oval Office, and hence who gets to make those lifetime Supreme Court appointments. There is too much at stake for Democrats to give Trey a pass this year. Just remember Katherine Harris. Elections have consequences.
This is why I believe it is important for Democrats to do everything they can to help Bruce Hendrickson defeat Trey Grayson in November.
Recent Comments