Mere Politics

Why would the FBI be in Frankfort?

Rumors are swirling around the State Capitol that the House of Representatives received a visit today from an FBI agent. Now why would the FBI be poking around the Capitol while a debate over casino legislation was in progress?

To quote Shakespeare's Antony: I pause for a response...

Steve Beshear and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad first couple of weeks

Things can't be very happy in the Governor's office right at this very moment. Champagne bottles, which had been intended for purposes of celebration, have been put away and replaced by bottles of vintage bourbon and shot glasses to make easier the writing of press releases explaining why the loss in the 30th district doesn't really matter politically--when, in fact, it does.

The defeat of Scott Alexander by Brandon Smith in the eastern Kentucky Senate district was the first big test of the ability of the Beshear administration exert its influence.  It failed, and in a fairly spectacular fashion.

If you're going to lose, it is best to be seen as not having tried very hard, but it was pretty plain to everyone involved in the 30th district race that the Beshear administration tried very hard indeed, with frequent visits by both the Lieutenant Governor (who vacated the seat when he won his new post) and the Governor himself.

They tried hard because it was important to them, despite the fact that they are now saying it was not.  Dan Mongiardo, taking a short break from licking his wounds, explained that it was not a setback for the administration at all: “It was a close race,” Mongiardo said in an interview. “Two counties went one way, and two counties went another way.”

Someone please inform the number two man that counties do not get to vote: voters get to vote, and they voted against his candidate, and people in these parts call that a "loss": L-O-S-S.

Even Beshear's chief of staff, Jim Cauley, got in on the disingenuousness. The loss, according to the Courier-Journal, "wasn't a big setback for the administration."

And so why were they trying so hard again?

Beshear had to win two battles to show who was boss: the 30th district race, which was to be a measure of his influence with the electorate, and the gambling initiative, which would be a measure of his influence with the legislature.  The first was to be a measure of his popular appeal, the second a measure of his political abilities--and both were a test of his political power.

He has lost the first battle, and stands to lose the second as well.  Smith's addition to an already formidable Republican Senate caucus doesn't really make that much of a difference to the strength of the anti-gambling Maginot Line that is the Senate--but only because it was already so strong in the first place.

Ironically, the Beshear loss in the 30th district will probably have more influence in the House.  Even though the Democrats won the two House races yesterday, they have to be looking at the Senate and wondering what exactly is in it for them to stick their necks out when they know the bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. 

Their pro-casino resolve can't be helped by the fact that a lack of a gambling bill a third of the way through the session has resulted in absolutely no momentum for the cause. 

Does anyone remember the 2002 General Assembly session, when by this time of the session the voters had been softened up by several month's worth of pro-gambling television commercials?  But this time, the casino industry has for some reason decided against an air war, and is waiting for a ground assault that so far has not come.

The industry still has enough money to do some mischief.  Even the real Maginot Line was breached after all.  But every day the now politically crippled administration dawdles makes it more likely that it will be viewed as politically ineffective.

David Williams is the one popping the champagne corks now.

Did Fletcher do Williams a favor? Not likely.

There have been various reports that, on it's way out the door, the Fletcher administration awarded a fat road contract in Senate President David Williams home district. 

I'm not going to argue that this didn't happen.  This is the way Frankfort has worked for years, and let's just speculate on why the state's major papers have never questioned the Democratic road deals that have been going on from time immemorial.

But something doesn't compute here.

Why would the Fletcher administration want to do David Williams any favors?  Anyone who knows anything about the relations between the Governor's office and the Senate over the last for years knows that they were cold at best.  Icy might be a better description.

Why would the Fletcher administration want to act favorably toward someone who was so little favored by Fletcher and his staff?  And consider also the fact that the last week or two of an administration is a time when everyone is on their own and last guy turns out the lights.

My theory?  This was the act of a lone ranger.  And if that's correct, you can't necessarily lay it at the feet of Fletcher and his top staff.

It's Miller Time

When even the Democratic state blogs started talking about a sex scandal in the Beshear administration, I thought perhaps one of the Governor's people had been outed as a heterosexual.  But it was not to be.

What the buzz is about is a Jonathan Miller aide who, since she was hired out of college by Miller, has seen her salary increase from $21,000 to $78,981 a year. $25,000 of the increase came over the last three years.  Now such extravagance is not totally unprecedented in government.  But I guess I'm thinking of the Louis IV administration here.

Questions are also being raised about a trip in May to Las Vegas, on which the young woman apparently accompanied Miller, although one report said that Miller couldn't remember whether she went on that trip or not--right before he remembered again.

"We had business meetings," the Herald Leader reports Miller said. "On trips where I'm trying to look to my future and to develop my future business contacts, yeah, she would have been involved in that kind of activity."

Miller was appointed by Beshear as his Administration and Finance Cabinet Secretary.  The Herald-Leader reports today that the young lady was appointed to the post of executive director of inter-governmental affairs.

Yes, I know.  Don't laugh.

The story is significant for a couple of reasons: First, Beshear has raised the ethics bar very high.  A scandal like this in the first days of his administration could be deadly.  There is only one mortal sin left in politics: hypocrisy. Being caught in bed with a dead women no longer counts.  Not even a live boy raises eyebrows.

Second, Miller is the Democrats golden boy with a sterling reputation (one of the reasons the Democrats themselves are so upset about this).  Who was it that said that the corruption of the best is the worst?

Tolerance Police upset about Democrats' domestic partner bill

Here is the first paragraph of the Lexington Herald-Leader's article, written by Ryan Alessi, on a bill filed by 21 House Democrats that would prohibit state agencies from paying for the health benefits of live-in partners of their employees:

Two Democratic state lawmakers are dredging up a controversial proposal to block public universities in Kentucky from extending health benefits to unmarried, live-in partners of the institutions’ employees.

"Dredging up"?  My, my.  Are we not happy about this over at the state's second largest newspaper?

What has been amusing in all this is to see the shock and outrage among the Tolerance Police that such a bill could come from Democrats:

“I had expected it but not from those two,” said Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, who said he opposes the bill. “I expected it from Republicans.”

Burch was ringmaster of last year's Health & Welfare Committee circus in which the bill failed by an 8 to 8 vote.  One thing Alessi and other reporters completely missed in this story--and perhaps the most interesting aspect of it--is that one of the two primary sponsors of the bill was the very person who caused its failure in last' sessions committee meeting.

Ancel Smith (D-Leburn), sponsor of this year's legislation, was the deciding vote that would have broken the 8-8 tie.  When the meeting happened, Smith didn't.  He wasn't there.  It was later revealed (on my blog) that Smith had taken refuge in an annex suite, and was actually watching the bill fail on the KET broadcast.

Smith must have heard it from the folks back home.  Now he appears to be fully behind it, saying that the votes are there to get it out of committee.

As others have pointed out, Gov. Steve Beshear has vowed to veto such a measure.  Wouldn't it be interesting if Beshear's first veto was of a Democratic bill--and he lost?  This is all being taken into account by the powers that be, of course, and one wonders what House leadership is thinking. 
Are they wanting to stay close to the administration, or do they want to show their independence from the executive branch?

The number of sponsors to this bill indicates that the votes exist on the floor to pass this bill, which is one reason why the Kentucky "Equality" Federation is upset:

Are they crazy? There are over 550,000 Kentuckians without health insurance coverage!

So apparently the solution is to cover the ones who are shacking up.  Such is the state of thinking over at Tolerance Central.

Stay tuned.  This could get interesting.

Feminist group offers to help Governor meet girls

Uh oh.  It turns out that Steve Beshear has a woman problem (No, not that kind).  The feminists are after him.  As it turns out, men outnumber women two to one in the Governor's cabinet choices  For shame, Governor, for shame.  The Kentucky Women website is after the Guv.  Here's what they have to say:

WCF Foundation Calls on Governors to Appoint More Women and Announces Pilot Program to Connect Governors with Qualified Female Candidates.

All those liberals out there thought all their problems would be solved--and now this.

I'm trying to figure out how to feel about this.  I think I'll try bemusement.

Strategery: John David Dyche's Blueprint for Republican Disaster

John David Dyche has the perfect banner for Kentucky Republicans to rally 'round after their defeat at the polls earlier this month: a white flag.

In yesterday's Courier-Journal, Dyche argues that Republican lawmakers who oppose casinos "should hold their fire in Frankfort during the legislative session and instead campaign against the amendment come autumn of 2008."  In case you're wondering, that is when, if a pro-casino constitutional amendment were to pass in the General Assembly session early next year, casinos would be dumping millions of dollars gained from the losses of people in other states to promote a "yes" vote on an amendment in Kentucky.

Until Dyche came along, it had always been thought that occupying a strong position was the best way to situate yourself before a battle.  But Dyche has another idea: put yourself in the weakest possible position, making yourself as vulnerable as possible to the enemy.  Too bad Sun Tzu never thought of it.

"Casino foes can make it perfectly clear that in putting an amendment before the voters, they reserve the right to vigorously resist its passage at the appropriate time."  Ooh.  That'll scare the bad guys.  And what exactly is the "appropriate time" for a Party to stand by its principles?  Is it before or after the ceremony for signing the unconditional surrender?

Had Napoleon employed this strategy, he wouldn't have had to wait so long for Waterloo.  He could have gotten it over early in his career and began his retirement on St. Helena while he could still enjoy the weather.

"Republicans may be able to bargain their consent to a gambling referendum into Beshear's backing for something they support," says Dyche, "or his tacit commitment not to recruit opponents or campaign against those who cooperate."  This is called the "Sell Your Supporters Down the Road" strategy.  I have consulted my dog-eared copy of von Clauswitz's On War, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

I could have sworn it was in there.

I was trying to think where I had seen such a show of concern for the person who had fallen on hard times.  Where was it that I had seen advice of this caliber directed toward the hard pressed?  And then it came to me:

Job's Comforters.

Okay, so Dyche's no Karl Rove.  Maybe he could make something of himself as a constitutional scholar.  But alas, here too he seems to be operating at a slight disadvantage.

Dyche seems to be under the impression that Kentucky has a referendum process, when, in fact, it has a process of amending its constitution that involves the ratification of the voters.  Lawmakers are supposed to vote for an amendment because they think it is a good idea, not because they want to punt.  We have a representative democracy, which means lawmakers are actually supposed to exercise their best judgment of what is good for the Commonwealth.

It's a word that Dyche might want to add to his political vocabulary. It's called "statesmanship."

I would call on Republicans to resist Dyche's siren song, but the sirens were reputed to have actually sounded good.  No one needs to tie themselves to the mast here.  The danger isn't coming from someone on shore, but someone who is ostensibly part of the crew: Dyche is a Republican himself. 

In such a case, my recommendation is to find a good, sturdy plank.  But don't make it too long: we don't want him to have to walk too far.   

New school chief a mixed bag

Reports are that State Rep. John Draud (R-Edgewood) will be getting the nod from the State School Board as Kentucky's new Education Commissioner.  Here are a few pluses and minuses of a Draud administration:

• PLUS: Draud has immediate credibility in the General Assembly.  Having been a legislator, and one who, although a Republican, has not been partisan in his attitude, he has working relationships in the legislature he can use to further his goals in the legislature. He also brings with him a knowledge of how the General Assembly works--no mean skill for state bureaucrat who has to work with lawmakers.
• MINUS: Draud lacks a dynamic personality.  Okay, let's put it this way: he isn't exactly Mr. Personality. He can be cold and aloof.  What he gains in legislative experience, he could lose here. Not that previous School Commissioners have ever given any evidence of having been to Charm School.  Thomas Boysen was probably the best in this regard, wowing legislators with his California glamour--although they finally saw through the glitz.  Bill Cody was so relationally inept that I had a better relationship with David Karem (the one who traditionally toted the Department of Education's water in the Senate) than he did.  Go figure. And I don't think the last one even tried to do this.  What was his name again?
• PLUS: Draud has strong credentials in school administration.  He's a successful school administrator. 'Nuff said.
• MINUS: He is a card-carrying member of the state education establishment. Alright, I admit it: to think that someone from outside the establishment (like Penny Sanders) would ever even be considered for the position is whistling Dixie.  Still, don't look for any big shakeups in Kentucky's education system. Draud was one of those who, during the big battles over education reforms in the late 90's, didn't seem to want to listen to any appeals for change.
• PLUS: Draud is not a shill for the teachers unions.  He is a school administrator, and school administrators are not traditionally beholden to the KEA.  This will come in handy later when Beshear starts issuing payoffs to the teachers unions for supporting him in the election.  He also has experience dealing with the unions and so presumably knows how to deal with them.

All in all, a mixed bag.

My article on media bias in today's Herald-Leader

My opinion piece on media bias appeared in today's Lexington Herald-Leader.

O Brothers! Stop the senseless leadership!

Over at Kentucky School News and Views, Richard Day criticizes Joe Brothers, the head of the State School Board, for moving ahead with the appointment of a new state schools chief in the face of a request from new Governor Steve Beshear to restart the process of hiring a new commissioner. 

Now I can see how someone could criticize the school board over this, but I'm not sure I understand how you could do it using Day's argument.  His criticism is that the Board is " railroading this choice."

Huh?

The position has been open for almost a year and its functions being performed by an assistant commissioner.  The one thing you can't criticize the Board for is "railroading this choice."  The only resemblance Brother's actions bear to locomotion as we know it is that Brothers appears to finally putting the cars back on the track after a train wreck.

I was critical too of the Board's Barbara Erwin fiasco, but I have a hard time feeling bad about how the Board has conducted itself since Brothers took the reins of the Board.  Finally, there seems to be some real leadership happening on education, and then, what do people want him to do?  They want him to stop it.

Just cut it out!  Someone needs to put a halt to this senseless leadership!

I don't see where this Board has any obligation under law or conscience to lay down and play dead simply because another governor is about to take over.  Every governor gets his chance to select his own members.  But, guess what?  It's not his turn yet.

And does anyone doubt that when Beshear does get his hands on the Board he's going to fill it with shills for the teachers unions that helped get him elected?  Let's hope not, but I'm not hopeful.

Maybe Day could articulate what obligation this board has to scratch everything it has done so far in the selection process because

In fact, one of the reasons I have heard offered for why the board is elected rather than appointed is to insulate it from the shifting winds of politics.  Yet now there are some people who want Board members  to wet a finger and stick it in the air.

And how much you want to bet these are people who would be having a fit if it was an incoming Republican governor who wanted immediate control over the Board's agenda?