BluegrassReport.org

Photo Caption Time!

It's been a while since we had a Photo Caption Contest. Give it a whirl. This should be good.

In Final Days, Not Much Hope Remains For Fletcher (Al Cross)

It's so hard to believe -- given how historic Governor Fletcher's (R) 2003 victory was -- that Al Cross' final column in the Sunday before the 2007 election would be titled:

In final days, not much hope remains for Fletcher

I don't think I've ever been more excited about seeing someone get thrown out of office like the voters appear poised to do with Fletcher. His behavior during this general election has been an eye-opener for many, as he's every bit the out-of-touch, arrogant, hateful, hypocritical, dishonest, holier-than-thou nut that his political beginnings suggested (click here for a quick refresher).

Next up: U.S. Senator McConnell (R), Senate President David Williams (R), and the three Republican state Senate seats needed to take back the majority in 2008. How much fun will it be to maintain a constant focus on these guys for the next year? And how long overdue...

Thoughts About Trey Grayson

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.

Does Senate President David Williams (R) Agree With Governor Fletcher (R) That This Is A Referendum Election On Expanded Gaming?

A reader posed an excellent question to me this morning:

Governor Fletcher has repeatedly stated that the election in November is a referendum on expanded gaming.  Several Fletcher press releases state “Voters will have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want casino gambling in Kentucky on November 6.” 

So the question that nobody has asked is – Do the Republican members of the General Assembly agree that this election is a referendum on gaming?  If they do, and Steve Beshear wins, then many of them will have to change their long held opposition to gaming, and agree to put it on the ballot.  It they do not agree that it is a referendum, Fletcher’s entire campaign message is undercut and rendered meaningless.

Republicans in the General Assembly who have opposed gaming should have to answer whether or not they agree with the Governor that the upcoming election is a referendum on gaming.

That's an excellent question and it's disappointing the media hasn't bothered asking people like Senate President David Williams (R), a top Fletcher supporter. They've happily reprinted Fletcher's assertion that this is a referendum election but they've dropped the ball on asking members of the legislature who are strong backing the governor.

Now's the time to press your favorite reporters on this question.

From The Party Of No New Taxes Comes A New Tax...So Shameless

I'm not sure that anyone in Kentucky -- besides Governor Fletcher (R) -- is better at talking out of both sides of his mouth than Senate President David Williams (R), and according to a story this morning, Williams seems prepared to do one of those high-degree-of-difficulty double flip-flops in one motion.

As anyone watching Williams over the years knows, he's almost robotic when it comes to his opposition of two particular issues: the imposition of new taxes and giving bonding authority to public universities. Yet, in one fell swoop, he's now willing to provide bonding authorities to municipalities to construct roads and bridges, as well as allowing them to place tolls on those projects to pay them back.

Funny how those back-flips happen.

Of course, giving municipalities bonding authority is no different than allowing public universities to do so, since in both cases the bonds would be backed by revenue-generating projects. But in the former case, that revenue would be generated by imposing on new tax on Kentuckians -- bridge and road tolls.

Yet, less than a year ago, Fletcher removed the tolls on the Natcher and Audubon Parkways with great fanfare, even going so far as claiming that the ending of the tolls would be "clearing a path for new jobs and economic opportunities throughout this entire region."

Remember that the next time David Williams offers one of his trademark lectures on new taxes, and it's hard not to notice that incompetent Fletcher managed to avoid offering his opinion on the issue.

Bill Might Pave Way For Toll Roads
MEASURE AIMS TO FUND LOUISVILLE BRIDGES
By Megan Boehnke, Herald-Leader

FRANKFORT -- Senate President David Williams prefiled a bill yesterday that would give local governments authority to issue bonds and create tolls for roads and bridges.

The bill is aimed at helping Louisville become a partner in speeding up fund-raising efforts for two new bridges across the Ohio River and the reworking of a downtown interchange, although it won't keep the state from being able to do the same.

Williams, R-Burkesville, cited the dwindling federal highway fund and the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis as chief reasons to find new ways of funding such projects.

"We might as well open our eyes and understand that many of the projects we're going to need in this Commonwealth ... will have to be built by these authorities," Williams said on the Senate floor.

"With the technology we have available today at present, that doesn't mean there'll be toll booths on all the bridges and other things we have, but we must enter into the discussion."

I think Williams deserves a score of about 9.8 for that double twisting flip-flop. Don't you?