Mere Politics

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.

Some people just like to complain

The supporters of domestic partner benefits at taxpayer-funded universities are complaining that the State Senate moved so quickly in passing Senate Bill 112, which would ban such benefits. 

But I'm wondering why they are complaining about the legislation moving so quickly.  Last session, far from complaining that the legislation moved so quickly, lawmakers opposed to the bill complained that we were spending so much time talking about a domestic partner benefits ban, since there were "so many other important issues to deal with".

You just can't please some people.

Beshear's Big Mistake: Why the governor's scorched earth policy toward Republicans will doom his legislative agenda

Passing legislation in a bipartisan legislature requires building alliances, not burning bridges.  The Beshear administration's recent cancellation of a road project in David William's senate district was an attempt by the Governor to put Williams in his place.  It was Beshear's first big mistake.

It's one thing to jerk the chain of someone you can beat; it's quite another to do it to someone who can beat you.  Senate President David Williams has about as strong a lock on power in the Senate as anyone since John "Eck" Rose.  If he wants a bill passed out of the Senate, it passes; if he doesn't want it, it doesn't pass.

Williams has been criticized for his imperious manner.  And indeed, whatever room he happens to be in, there no doubt that he thinks he is the smartest and most articulate person there.  There are two things to be said about this: First of all, he is.  Second, although it puts some people off, it is usually the same bunch of people who didn't like him in the first place.

Despite sometimes being contary and condescending, William's leadership in the Republican Senate caucus is solid and uncontested. His manner may grate on those outside the caucus, but he is admired and trusted inside his own caucus.  His members know their fate is secure in his politically capable hands, and he knows how to push the caucus in the right direction while respecting his members.  The members of the caucus like success, and they know Williams will deliver it.

Those who work with him know Williams likes his position respected.  He is the Senate leader and he likes to be treated accordingly.  This is where Beshear has gone seriously astray in his strategy for success in his first legislative session.

The first casualty of Beshear's gaffe will be his casino legislation--if indeed it had a chance in the first place.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, David Williams already had every political incentive to stop the Governor's expanded gambling effort.  If it does anything, Beshear's clumsy move puts the nail in the coffin of the effort to bring casinos to the state.

As Jill Johnson Keeney correctly observed in her Courier-Journal article last Sunday, the move was the political equivalent of saying, ""I, Steve Beshear, am the most powerful office holder in Kentucky. You, David Williams, will suffer if you don't cooperate with my agenda."

Bad move.

This strategy only works if you can do something to David Williams and he can't do something to you.  Unfortunately for Beshear, there's plenty Williams can do.

Look for him to do it.

Pro-gambling blogs erroneously charge anti-gambling leader with pro-gambling past

The gambling industry apparently thinks it can not only buy legislative votes, but change history.  Several liberal, pro-gambling blogs, including The Hillbilly Report and BlueGrassRoots are questioning the core convictions of John Mark Hack, the spokesman for SayNoCasino, who, they charge, once tried to get a job with KEEP, a pro-gambling horse industry group, before launching off on an anti-gambling crusade.

The charge, it turns out, is demonstrably false.

These blogs have taken the following comment from a 2006 post by Mark Nicholas's BluegrassReport blog:

This morning, Jim Navolio, the Executive Director of the Kentucky Equine Education Project (KEEP), e-mailed me about last night's show and during a back and forth about the issue (I am not a member of KEEP and have only met Jim in passing a few times) he mentioned that Hack had first approached KEEP in the summer of 2004 about being hired to do its public relations work, but was not selected.

Navolio says that when this history is raised, Hack's talking point is that he didn’t know KEEP had a gambling agenda at the time and he is glad they didn’t hire him. He didn't know? Come on. He bid on (and lost) a multi-million dollar p/r job yet now says he didn’t know it this involved gambling. Apparently, Hack was the only person in Kentucky who didn’t know.

While there's nothing new about hired guns working for those who are willing to pay them, it certainly makes it harder to take him and what he says credibly. So much for a moral or philosophical compass or having a core conviction on this issue. While I don't hate all Republicans, I couldn't imagine crossing the aisle and managing a Republican's campaign for office for the money or the job. Maybe this is why I have such a visceral response to lobbying in general. I passionately believe the things I write and the fights I'm willing to take-on. I just can't imagine on a matter like gaming that I could go from one extreme to the other for the money.

How could anyone know, asks Nicholas (and the other blogs), that KEEP was a pro-casino in the summer of 2004?  Well, it appears that even KEEP didn't know it was pro-casino in the summer of 2004, since KEEP did not take a position on the issue until September of 2005.

Oops.

Okay, folks, looks like you owe Hack an apology.  Let' see how stand up you are.

Anti-gambling forces already distorting facts

BlueGrassRoots, a liberal blog, had this to say about The Family Foundation:

The Family Foundation always seems to be a thorn in the ass and the poison in the belly that slows progress in Kentucky, either by spreading their hate via the Kentucky Citizen or standing on their hypocritical stump preaching against gambling in Kentucky. The Family Foundation has teamed up, as always, with Say No to Casinos to spread the word of GOD and to stop Vito Corleone from making Kentucky his home.

I suppose if The Family Foundation had used language like that it could be considered to be spreading hate, but no.  Instead you have, once again, people spreading hate in the very same breath that they are accusing other people of it.  "Poison in the belly."  Boy, we can just feel the luv.

Then, after engaging in a blatant case of hypocrisy themselves, they go and argue that The Family Foundation is hypocritical:

From the Bluegrass Report (Tuesday, March 21, 2006) First, it was audaciously hypocritical to listen to Ostrander -- the man who led charge in 2004 to give the voters the option of amending the state's constitution to ban gay marriage -- argue that those same voters ought not have that same right on this issue. In 2004, Ostrander said this about the gay marriage amendment.

Huh?  The argument used by The Family Foundation in the marriage amendment had nothing to do with telling legislators that they shouldn't vote on the issue itself, but vote to "let the people decide".  Legislators instead were urged simply to vote the right way so that their constituents would ratify that decision. 

Pro-casino forces are urging their allies in the General Assembly not to vote on the issue itself, but instead to simply punt. They're trying to say that a vote for an amendment that would bring casinos into the state is something other than a vote to bring casinos into the state.  The pro-marriage forces never did that.  A vote for the marriage amendment was never characterized by pro-amendment forces as anything other than a vote for marriage.  And if blogs like BlueGrassRoots say they did, then should produce some evidence if it.

And by the way, what progress is The Family Foundation slowing?  Progress toward liberalism?

Unbridled Greed: The developing story of how casino money is distorting Kentucky politics

The Beshear administration came to office on the wings of a promise that it was going to avoid what it considered the ethical lapses of the previous administration.  Does it seem strange to anyone that, in the wake this exalted rhetoric, his first act as governor has been to ally himself with an industry far-famed for corruption?

Of course, Beshear never hid his intention of pushing for casino gambling during his campaign for the state's highest office.  But what he didn't say was how it was going to be done.

Beshear and other casino advocates say that opening the floodgates to casino interests will benefit average Kentuckians.  But if this is true, then why is it not average Kentuckians, but big gambling interests, who are now in the process of doing what they do best: maximizing their profits by minimizing good government?

Before elected leaders turned away the gambling industry two years ago, a pro-casino group attempted to influence a special State Senate election by pouring tens of thousands of dollars into the campaign of the pro-casino candidate.  The candidate won, but the strategy thankfully backfired when attention to the potentially harmful impact of big gambling money on state government was exposed.

This year, the gambling industry has turned on the financial spigots once again.  According the Lexington Herald-Leader, gambling interests poured almost half a million dollars into a little-known Democratic campaign fund with the obvious intent of buying influence in the debate over inviting casinos into the state.  "Nearly 40 people connected with those interests," said the report, "accounted for about 28 percent of the money raised by the Kentucky Victory 2007 Committee."

It is a strange historical irony that attempts by gambling interests to influence government should be directed at changing constitutional language that was placed there for the very purpose of preventing attempts to influence government by gambling interests.

Kentucky's constitution prohibits casino gambling for a very good reason: because it can distort and disfigure the political landscape of a state. Anti-gambling language was included in Kentucky's constitution in 1891 because of numerous scandals involving corruption and influence peddling by the gambling industry.

Yes, that was a long time ago. But gambling-related scandals haven’t ceased in recent times, as the public familiarity with names like Edwin Edwards and Jack Abramoff testify.

The casino industry will argue that it isn't like it used to be.  They will say that, unlike their institutional forbears, they are not bribing public officials for their votes.  No, they're not.  No one is putting a wad of cash into anyone's pocket: that's the old way of doing things, and it's illegal.  Instead, they are putting a wad of cash into political campaign funds: that's the new way of doing things, and it's perfectly legal.

But the fact that the gambling industry is now legally peddling influence on a large scale, and not illegally doing it on a small scale, will come as cold comfort to Kentuckians concerned about the potential for political corruption in the Commonwealth.

The arguments offered by the casino industry are not themselves very compelling.  But the casino industry does not need logic to further its cause.  Unlike the rest of us, the casino industry is not limited by the strength of its case.  It is limited only by the size of its bank accounts. Arguments are not its greatest asset: assets are its greatest asset.

Why try to convince policymakers, when you can simply purchase them?

And there is another irony.  Relatively speaking, Kentucky is a poor state.  It is also a state that has a history of allowing itself to be exploited.  Its land, its people, and its institutions have all been victimized in various ways of those who care too little for the state's common good, and too much for their own personal benefit.

Kentucky, of all states, can ill afford for its leaders to open it up once again to those who are interested in little more than taking the "common" out of Commonwealth.

David Karem shooting straight

Well, the Courier-Journal interviewed former State Sen. David Karem of Louisville yesterday and told him he could speak frankly, which is a little like telling the Pope that it's okay to be Catholic.  Karem was probably the Kentucky General Assembly's most formidable liberal the day (the 1990's I mean), but even as a conservative I can say that he was the single most honest and straightforward person I ever dealt with at the Capitol.  We started out on opposite sides of a number of hot button issues, including the 1990 school reforms, but became good friends.  I sorely miss him now that he's gone.

But don't tell him that: it will go to his head.

The interview is vintage Karem, and there were several remarks he made that will not endear him to the new Governor.

On the (so-called) Budget Crisis:

I was there 33 years and I never ever remember anybody saying, "Oh, this is a glorious budget time. We just have amazing amounts of money to spend...I don't think I remember anybody ever giving a speech when they do the State of the Commonwealth saying, "These are the glorious days of our commonwealth.

On the (so-called) $420 Million Budget Shortfall:

I guess Beshear would be angry at me for saying it, but I don't think that's a shocking number. That's not an outrageous number when you're talking about billions of dollars in the budget. It is a challenge. And it may be numbers that somehow have some similarity to what you might hope to get from casino gambling.

On Working with David Williams:

The first thing that has to happen, and it's the Democrats' problem, the Democrats need to swallow their pride and admit that David Williams is the most powerful Republican in the state of Kentucky, excluding Mitch McConnell, who I'm considering outside of the state of Kentucky. Give the man his due. They have to start saying, "We have an obligation to work with him." They've got to start working with him. They've got to figure out how they can get some common ground. I don't mean that means they kiss up to the guy, but I think it means let it be pretty darn clear that we understand in the state of Kentucky where the authority of the Republican Party lies.

Casino Gambling article in today's Herald-Leader

I was quoted in today's article on casino gambling in the Lexington Herald-Leader

Douglas Wilson on Ron Paul (and the Ken Doll Republicans)

I think I agree with every point in this piece by Douglas Wilson.

U of L receives "Red Light" Rating from Freedom of Speech organization

The University of Louisville was among a number of schools that received the worst rating from a national free speech organization: Cardinal Red.  The "Red Light" rating came from The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, whose report, "Spotlight on Speech Codes 2007" rates schools for the prevalence of student speech codes.

The report doesn't detail what infractions U of L committed to receive the rating, but it's hard to believe that it doesn't come from the increasing intolerance on the U of L campus for expression that might reflect negatively on gays.  U of L's "Safe Zone" program has come under fire for, among other things, treading on the freedom of expression.

The "Red Light" rating is given as follows:

A school is rated as a “red light” if it has at least one policy that both clearly and
substantially restricts freedom of speech. A “clear” restriction is one that unambiguously infringes on protected expression. In other words, the threat to free speech at a red-light institution is obvious on the face of the policy and does not depend on how the policy is applied. A “substantial” restriction on free speech is one that is broadly applicable to important categories of campus expression. For example, a ban on “offensive speech” would be a clear violation (in that it is unambiguous) as well as a substantial violation (in that it covers a great deal of what would be protected expression in the larger society). Such a policy would earn a university a red light.

Congratulations U of L.