Black Friday: The High Holiday of Capitalism
Well, here it is, Black Friday; the high holiday of Capitalism. Thanksgiving got the usual short thrift again this year, stuck as it is between the "Candyween" and
"CreditcardMas ". I guess I can't really blame anyone. After all, it's pretty tough trying to commercialize a tradition of giving thanks for family and friends. Where's the money in that? Besides, Thanksgiving is mostly a food oriented day, punctuated with excessive eating and football, followed by food induced comas (nothing says "thank you" to the All Mighty like overindulgence and a 7 point spread).
I guess what I object to the most is all the Christmas hype. This year I saw my very first commercial (I kid you not) the week before Halloween. Now seriously, in October? There should be a law prohibiting any promotion of a holiday before the preceding holiday. For example, no advertising of Thanksgiving (as if that's going to happen anyway) before Halloween. No Christmas commercials, TV specials, sales or anything else until the day after Thanksgiving. Now doesn't that make more sense? Let's give each holiday its proper due and respect (not to mention our frantic nerves and credit cards a break).
Money Growing on (Christmas) Trees?
Speaking of Christmas, did you hear the latest about Christmas trees? Obama had originally agreed to sign a law applying a 15 cent tax on every fresh cut Christmas tree sold. As if that wasn't outrageous enough, the reason was even more outrageous. According to the Agriculture Department, the tax would apply to all "producers and importers" of 500 trees or more. The USDA went on to say that this new program, and its tax was for the benefit of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. Now just what is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board you might be asking yourself about now? Well, let me tell you.
The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is a private association of Christmas tree growers who are feeling the stiff competition from the manufactures of artificial Christmas trees (I wonder if there's an Artificial Christmas Tree Promotion Board?). Seems that the board was needing some help getting its message out about the splendors (and smells) of having a fresh Christmas tree in every living room in America. Apparently unable to obtain voluntary cooperation from within the group, they turned to the USDA.
However, after much ridicule, both the Obama Administration and the Agriculture Department agreed that now wasn't a really good time talk about taxing a Christmas tradition and withdrew the program until a more appropriate time (like when the public isn't paying as much attention). Now, just why the federal government is even considering a tax on behalf of a private organization for the benefit of their advertising and PR costs is beyond me. I can only assume that Hannukah bushes are exempt.
For more on the story, check out:
White House Sidelines Christmas Tree Tax
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/
Shirts or Skins?
America, The Land of Free and Home of the Brave right? Well, maybe not. This past May 5, 2011, the Morgan Hill United School District near San Francisco decided to promote the Hispanic heritage (May 5th is the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo). However, some students decided to wear shirts celebrating America. Now, a reasonable person would see no problem with this. However, the principal of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill ordered those students to either go home and changes shirts or turn their shirts depicting the American flag inside out. As you would expect, a ruckus ensued and the matter went to court.
The previous year there had been some taunts over articles of clothing by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. A Mexican flag was hoisted over an American flag. It was shortly taken down by "Anglo" students amid chants of "USA", but it seems that the point was made.
This year, it was decided to honor Hispanic heritage by encouaging Hispanic student to take an extra bit of pride by wearing articles of clothing while the school system modified its curriculum south of the border and even the school cafeterias got into the act with a Hispanic cuisine (if you can call school lunches "cuisine"). The school ordered the offending "Anglo" students to change out of concern that their shirts would result in possible violence while the parent's of those students argued 1st Amendment rights.
Federal District Judge James Ware agreed with the school system that the non-Hispanic students didn't have a right to wear articles of clothing reflecting America, nor by extension, reframe from participating in programs prompting Hispanic culture. The decision is being appealed.
Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday celebrating a victory of outnumbered Mexican forces over a larger and better equipped Imperial French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. The chief signifcance of the battle was a major moral boost to the beliggered Mexians trying to purge themselves of the French and preventing the French from extending their support of the Confedercy during the early days of the Civil War (The French, under Emperor Napoleon III was attempting to create a Latin Empire and at the same time supported a divided America. If successful, the French would be able to lay claim to much of the southwest territories. As an aside, the English and the Vatican also supported the cause of the South).
There can be no arguing that Cinco de Mayo is, albeit indirectly, tired to US history. It was certainally a victory for national freedom. However, there can equally be no argument that events in 1848 Germany or the Louisana Purchase from France or Alaska from Russia were just as important events to this country. Indeed, more so. The same came be said for over events such as the British attmept to starve the Irish off their land and the resulting Irish Famine immigration. The point is that we are a multi-culturial nation and we each have a reason to be proud of our ethnic hertitage. But, we've come to this land to "form a more perfect union" as a united people with a common language, traditions, and values. To acknowledge a certain ethnic hertitage is fine in my opinion so far as it does not do so at the exclusion of other ethnic groups. To punish students for expressing their common hertiage as Americans is wrong by any measure. Might there be taunts or even violence? Yes, it's possible. However, what's at stake here is two fold. First, that no ethnic group is above another. All must submit itself to an identity as Americans. Second is the fundimental right of self expression as guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. That one group would be offended demonstrates that more time needs to be spent on American history.
To learn more, check out these two articles:
Court Backs High Schools in Flap Over American Flag T-Shirts
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/court-backs-high-school-in-flap-over-american-flag-t-shirts/
Court backs Morgan Hill school in flag dispute
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/BA2N1LU0HC.DTL
Just How Much Religious Tolerance Are We Talking About?
Finally, I just had to tell you about this one. Moslems attending Catholic University in Washington DC are miffed that there are crosses on the campus. So miffed in fact, that a lawsuit was filed. Moslem students are citing a violation of their human rights, and alleging that the university will not allow them to form a student association, provide rooms without Christian symbols or provide Halal meals. They allege that they are forced to prayed amid Christian crosses, icons, and pictures.
The university said it had no objection to the forming of a Moslem student association, acknowledging that there is a Jewish student association on campus, and it has been as accommodating as possible, but does not offer specially prepared meals.
The absurdity of this is almost comical if it wasn't so illustrative of what is happening in this country. If you don't want to be around Jewish or Hindu or Christian or Moslem religious symbolism, then don't go there. While they may not have a choice in their home countries, this nation offers individuals the choice of where they can attend school. Although I am not Catholic, I opted to attend Catholic universities for my undergraduate and graduate degrees because of the quality of education I knew I would receive. If I though I would have an issue with priests or nuns (or the required religious curriculum) I would have opted for another school, but I was open to learning about another faith and getting a top tier education to boot.
My suggestion to these students is either suck it up and get on with their education from an outstanding university or go elsewhere. I'm sure the same accommodations already afforded them wouldn't be afforded non-Moslem students in their home countries. Be grateful you're in America.
Here's the article:
Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate "Human Rights" of Muslims?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html
Friday, November 25, 2011
Shirts or Skins?
Shirts or Skins?
America, The Land of Free and Home of the Brave right? Well, maybe not. This past May 5, 2011, the Morgan Hill United School District near San Francisco decided to promote the Hispanic heritage (May 5th is the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo). However, some students decided to wear shirts celebrating America. Now, a reasonable person would see no problem with this. However, the principal of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill ordered those students to either go home and changes shirts or turn their shirts depicting the American flag inside out. As you would expect, a ruckus ensued and the matter went to court.
The previous year there had been some taunts over articles of clothing by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. A Mexican flag was hoisted over an American flag. It was shortly taken down by "Anglo" students amid chants of "USA", but it seems that the point was made.
This year, it was decided to honor Hispanic heritage by encouaging Hispanic student to take an extra bit of pride by wearing articles of clothing while the school system modified its curriculum south of the border and even the school cafeterias got into the act with a Hispanic cuisine (if you can call school lunches "cuisine"). The school ordered the offending "Anglo" students to change out of concern that their shirts would result in possible violence while the parent's of those students argued 1st Amendment rights.
Federal District Judge James Ware agreed with the school system that the non-Hispanic students didn't have a right to wear articles of clothing reflecting America, nor by extension, reframe from participating in programs prompting Hispanic culture. The decision is being appealed.
Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday celebrating a victory of outnumbered Mexican forces over a larger and better equipped Imperial French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. The chief signifcance of the battle was a major moral boost to the beliggered Mexians trying to purge themselves of the French and preventing the French from extending their support of the Confedercy during the early days of the Civil War (The French, under Emperor Napoleon III was attempting to create a Latin Empire and at the same time supported a divided America. If successful, the French would be able to lay claim to much of the southwest territories. As an aside, the English and the Vatican also supported the cause of the South).
There can be no arguing that Cinco de Mayo is, albeit indirectly, tired to US history. It was certainally a victory for national freedom. However, there can equally be no argument that events in 1848 Germany or the Louisana Purchase from France or Alaska from Russia were just as important events to this country. Indeed, more so. The same came be said for over events such as the British attmept to starve the Irish off their land and the resulting Irish Famine immigration. The point is that we are a multi-culturial nation and we each have a reason to be proud of our ethnic hertitage. But, we've come to this land to "form a more perfect union" as a united people with a common language, traditions, and values. To acknowledge a certain ethnic hertitage is fine in my opinion so far as it does not do so at the exclusion of other ethnic groups. To punish students for expressing their common hertiage as Americans is wrong by any measure. Might there be taunts or even violence? Yes, it's possible. However, what's at stake here is two fold. First, that no ethnic group is above another. All must submit itself to an identity as Americans. Second is the fundimental right of self expression as guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. That one group would be offended demonstrates that more time needs to be spent on American history.
To learn more, check out these two articles:
Court Backs High Schools in Flap Over American Flag T-Shirts
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/court-backs-high-school-in-flap-over-american-flag-t-shirts/
Court backs Morgan Hill school in flag dispute
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/BA2N1LU0HC.DTL
Just How Much Religious Tolerance Are We Talking About?
Finally, I just had to tell you about this one. Moslems attending Catholic University in Washington DC are miffed that there are crosses on the campus. So miffed in fact, that a lawsuit was filed. Moslem students are citing a violation of their human rights, and alleging that the university will not allow them to form a student association, provide rooms without Christian symbols or provide Halal meals. They allege that they are forced to prayed amid Christian crosses, icons, and pictures.
The university said it had no objection to the forming of a Moslem student association, acknowledging that there is a Jewish student association on campus, and it has been as accommodating as possible, but does not offer specially prepared meals.
The absurdity of this is almost comical if it wasn't so illustrative of what is happening in this country. If you don't want to be around Jewish or Hindu or Christian or Moslem religious symbolism, then don't go there. While they may not have a choice in their home countries, this nation offers individuals the choice of where they can attend school. Although I am not Catholic, I opted to attend Catholic universities for my undergraduate and graduate degrees because of the quality of education I knew I would receive. If I though I would have an issue with priests or nuns (or the required religious curriculum) I would have opted for another school, but I was open to learning about another faith and getting a top tier education to boot.
My suggestion to these students is either suck it up and get on with their education from an outstanding university or go elsewhere. I'm sure the same accommodations already afforded them wouldn't be afforded non-Moslem students in their home countries. Be grateful you're in America.
Here's the article:
Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate "Human Rights" of Muslims?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html
America, The Land of Free and Home of the Brave right? Well, maybe not. This past May 5, 2011, the Morgan Hill United School District near San Francisco decided to promote the Hispanic heritage (May 5th is the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo). However, some students decided to wear shirts celebrating America. Now, a reasonable person would see no problem with this. However, the principal of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill ordered those students to either go home and changes shirts or turn their shirts depicting the American flag inside out. As you would expect, a ruckus ensued and the matter went to court.
The previous year there had been some taunts over articles of clothing by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. A Mexican flag was hoisted over an American flag. It was shortly taken down by "Anglo" students amid chants of "USA", but it seems that the point was made.
This year, it was decided to honor Hispanic heritage by encouaging Hispanic student to take an extra bit of pride by wearing articles of clothing while the school system modified its curriculum south of the border and even the school cafeterias got into the act with a Hispanic cuisine (if you can call school lunches "cuisine"). The school ordered the offending "Anglo" students to change out of concern that their shirts would result in possible violence while the parent's of those students argued 1st Amendment rights.
Federal District Judge James Ware agreed with the school system that the non-Hispanic students didn't have a right to wear articles of clothing reflecting America, nor by extension, reframe from participating in programs prompting Hispanic culture. The decision is being appealed.
Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday celebrating a victory of outnumbered Mexican forces over a larger and better equipped Imperial French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. The chief signifcance of the battle was a major moral boost to the beliggered Mexians trying to purge themselves of the French and preventing the French from extending their support of the Confedercy during the early days of the Civil War (The French, under Emperor Napoleon III was attempting to create a Latin Empire and at the same time supported a divided America. If successful, the French would be able to lay claim to much of the southwest territories. As an aside, the English and the Vatican also supported the cause of the South).
There can be no arguing that Cinco de Mayo is, albeit indirectly, tired to US history. It was certainally a victory for national freedom. However, there can equally be no argument that events in 1848 Germany or the Louisana Purchase from France or Alaska from Russia were just as important events to this country. Indeed, more so. The same came be said for over events such as the British attmept to starve the Irish off their land and the resulting Irish Famine immigration. The point is that we are a multi-culturial nation and we each have a reason to be proud of our ethnic hertitage. But, we've come to this land to "form a more perfect union" as a united people with a common language, traditions, and values. To acknowledge a certain ethnic hertitage is fine in my opinion so far as it does not do so at the exclusion of other ethnic groups. To punish students for expressing their common hertiage as Americans is wrong by any measure. Might there be taunts or even violence? Yes, it's possible. However, what's at stake here is two fold. First, that no ethnic group is above another. All must submit itself to an identity as Americans. Second is the fundimental right of self expression as guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. That one group would be offended demonstrates that more time needs to be spent on American history.
To learn more, check out these two articles:
Court Backs High Schools in Flap Over American Flag T-Shirts
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/court-backs-high-school-in-flap-over-american-flag-t-shirts/
Court backs Morgan Hill school in flag dispute
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/BA2N1LU0HC.DTL
Just How Much Religious Tolerance Are We Talking About?
Finally, I just had to tell you about this one. Moslems attending Catholic University in Washington DC are miffed that there are crosses on the campus. So miffed in fact, that a lawsuit was filed. Moslem students are citing a violation of their human rights, and alleging that the university will not allow them to form a student association, provide rooms without Christian symbols or provide Halal meals. They allege that they are forced to prayed amid Christian crosses, icons, and pictures.
The university said it had no objection to the forming of a Moslem student association, acknowledging that there is a Jewish student association on campus, and it has been as accommodating as possible, but does not offer specially prepared meals.
The absurdity of this is almost comical if it wasn't so illustrative of what is happening in this country. If you don't want to be around Jewish or Hindu or Christian or Moslem religious symbolism, then don't go there. While they may not have a choice in their home countries, this nation offers individuals the choice of where they can attend school. Although I am not Catholic, I opted to attend Catholic universities for my undergraduate and graduate degrees because of the quality of education I knew I would receive. If I though I would have an issue with priests or nuns (or the required religious curriculum) I would have opted for another school, but I was open to learning about another faith and getting a top tier education to boot.
My suggestion to these students is either suck it up and get on with their education from an outstanding university or go elsewhere. I'm sure the same accommodations already afforded them wouldn't be afforded non-Moslem students in their home countries. Be grateful you're in America.
Here's the article:
Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate "Human Rights" of Muslims?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html
Black Friday: The High Holiday of Capitalism
Well, here it is, Black Friday; the high holiday of Capitalism. Thanksgiving got the usual short thrift again this year, stuck as it is between the "Candyween" and
"CreditcardMas ". I guess I can't really blame anyone. After all, it's pretty tough trying to commercialize a tradition of giving thanks for family and friends. Where's the money in that? Besides, Thanksgiving is mostly a food oriented day, punctuated with excessive eating and football, followed by food induced comas (nothing says "thank you" to the All Mighty like overindulgence and a 7 point spread).
I guess what I object to the most is all the Christmas hype. This year I saw my very first commercial (I kid you not) the week before Halloween. Now seriously, in October? There should be a law prohibiting any promotion of a holiday before the preceding holiday. For example, no advertising of Thanksgiving (as if that's going to happen anyway) before Candyween. No Christmas commercials, TV specials, sales or anything else until the day after Thanksgiving. Now doesn't that make more sense? Let's give each holiday its proper due and respect (not to mention our frantic nerves and credit cards a break).
Money Growing on (Christmas) Trees?
Speaking of Christmas, did you hear the latest about Christmas trees? Obama had originally agreed to sign a law applying a 15 cent tax to every fresh cut Christmas tree sold. As if that wasn't outrageous enough, the reason was even more outrageous. According to the Agriculture Department, the tax would apply to all "producers and importers" of 500 trees or more. The USDA went on to say that this new program, and its tax was for the benefit of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. Now just what is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board you might be asking yourself about now? Well, let me tell you.
The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is a private association of Christmas tree growers who are feeling the stiff competition from the manufactures of artificial Christmas trees (I wonder if there's an Artificial Christmas Tree Promotion Board?). Seems that the board was needing some help getting its message out about the splendors (and smells) of having a fresh Christmas tree in every living room in America. Apparently unable to obtain voluntary cooperation from within the group, they turned to the USDA.
However, after much ridicule, both the Obama Administration and the Agriculture Department agreed that now wasn't a really good time talk about taxing a Christmas tradition and withdrew the program until a more appropriate time (like when the public isn't paying as much attention). Now, just why the federal government is even considering a tax on behalf of a private organization for the benefit of their advertising and PR costs is beyond me. I can only assume that Hanukah bushes are exempt.
For more on the story, check out:
White House Sidelines Christmas Tree Tax
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/
"CreditcardMas ". I guess I can't really blame anyone. After all, it's pretty tough trying to commercialize a tradition of giving thanks for family and friends. Where's the money in that? Besides, Thanksgiving is mostly a food oriented day, punctuated with excessive eating and football, followed by food induced comas (nothing says "thank you" to the All Mighty like overindulgence and a 7 point spread).
I guess what I object to the most is all the Christmas hype. This year I saw my very first commercial (I kid you not) the week before Halloween. Now seriously, in October? There should be a law prohibiting any promotion of a holiday before the preceding holiday. For example, no advertising of Thanksgiving (as if that's going to happen anyway) before Candyween. No Christmas commercials, TV specials, sales or anything else until the day after Thanksgiving. Now doesn't that make more sense? Let's give each holiday its proper due and respect (not to mention our frantic nerves and credit cards a break).
Money Growing on (Christmas) Trees?
Speaking of Christmas, did you hear the latest about Christmas trees? Obama had originally agreed to sign a law applying a 15 cent tax to every fresh cut Christmas tree sold. As if that wasn't outrageous enough, the reason was even more outrageous. According to the Agriculture Department, the tax would apply to all "producers and importers" of 500 trees or more. The USDA went on to say that this new program, and its tax was for the benefit of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. Now just what is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board you might be asking yourself about now? Well, let me tell you.
The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is a private association of Christmas tree growers who are feeling the stiff competition from the manufactures of artificial Christmas trees (I wonder if there's an Artificial Christmas Tree Promotion Board?). Seems that the board was needing some help getting its message out about the splendors (and smells) of having a fresh Christmas tree in every living room in America. Apparently unable to obtain voluntary cooperation from within the group, they turned to the USDA.
However, after much ridicule, both the Obama Administration and the Agriculture Department agreed that now wasn't a really good time talk about taxing a Christmas tradition and withdrew the program until a more appropriate time (like when the public isn't paying as much attention). Now, just why the federal government is even considering a tax on behalf of a private organization for the benefit of their advertising and PR costs is beyond me. I can only assume that Hanukah bushes are exempt.
For more on the story, check out:
White House Sidelines Christmas Tree Tax
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/merry-christmas-agriculture-department-imposes-christmas-tree-tax/
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
2011 Kentucky General Election Results
I bet ya'll didn't know there was an Old Kentucky woodshed just behind the Old Kentucky Home. Well, if you had any doubts, just ask Kentucky Senate President David Williams (R). Williams and all but one of the Republican ticket each took a turn for an old fashion Southern "butt whuppin'" Tuesday night.
Williams, who was running to unseat the incumbent, but largely mediocre current governor Steve Beshear, lost handily 56% to 35% with perennial independent candidate Gatewood Galbraith bringing up the rear with an impressive 9%. Williams, known for his combative and often arrogant style, trailed throughout the campaign. Many conservatives throughout the state were largely disappointed when Williams defeated Phil Moffett in the GOP Primary. Most felt that given his prickly personality, Williams was the worse possible candidate for the statewide run.
Historically, Kentucky's Republican Party has rarely won the Governor's Mansion. The last successful candidate was Ernie Fletcher (2003-2007), who left office under a cloud of incompetence (deservedly or not, is a matter for frequent debates). Prior to Fletcher, it had been 30 years since there had been a Republican Governor, and that was the popular Louie Nunn. Absent from much of the race was any mentioned of Beshear's running mate, former Mayor-for-life, Jerry Abramson. Rumors circulated among conservative Democrats and Republicans alike that the reason for the nearly invisible Abramson was to downplay his scandal ridden latter terms and poor showing among several unions, community groups, and conservatives. William's running mate and former basketball superstar, Rich Farmer, made a few appearances on TV, but because of a pending divorce (announced shortly after the campaign began), kept it low key. A poor decision in my opinion given the popularity of Farmer in a state crazy about college basketball and its players.
The Republican down ticket took its "thumpin'" along with Williams. Todd P'Pool lost to the incumbent Jack Conway for Attorney General by a only 10% (55% to 45%). Many saw this as Conway's last chance to have any political relevance given a history of defeats for higher office. Conway managed to hang on against a powerful P'Pool. campaign. This is guy to watch for future races. As for Conway, he's been given another respite. Let's hope he uses it well.
In the race for race for Secretary of State, Republican Bill Johnson lost to Alison Lundergan Grimes. Johnson was often criticized for having a "bad temper" and being "combative". The truth, however, may be that Johnson was just getting a bit tired of having his positions misrepresented. Regardless, Alison Grimes, the daughter of former Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan, ran a great (and occasionally humorous) campaign. I expect good things from Alison. The final count was 61% to 39%.
Kentucky State Treasurer went to incumbent Todd Hollenbach, son of the locally infamous County Judge of forced busing days back in the mid-1970s. In his defense, Todd is nice guy; intelligent and committed to doing a good job. Hollenbach beat KC Crosbie, the Republican, by 49% to 47% with the Libertarian, Ken Moellman picking up the spread. Let me tell you something about KC Crosbie. She is smart as a whip. With the right campaign manager, this gal can win and win big. If the GOP powers-that-be had any common sense, they would get behind and stay behind KC. She has the potential to be the first Republican female governor (and only the second female governor behind Martha Lane Collins).
Adam Edelen won as Kentucky Auditor over John Kemper 56% to 44%. While Edelen ran a good campaign, this was more about how not to run a campaign by the Republican. Rule #1: Do a background check for baggage. You can bet your opponent will. If you have any, maybe you should bow out.
The only Republican to escape a trip to the woodshed was James Comer, who ran on something rare in politics today...the truth. Comer didn't try to pretend to be anything other than what he is, a farmer who wanted to be Kentucky's next Agriculture Commissioner. Kentuckians rewarded Comer with a 64% to 35% win over part time comedian Bob Farmer (only in Kentucky folks).
The Kentucky Republican Party needs to decide whether it wants to win elections at the state and local levels or remain a "also ran" party. With my 35+ years of experience as a candidate, campaign manager and strategist, the GOP needs to apologize to the every conservative in the state for its lackluster performance, as well as its lack of aggression, imagination, and organization.
Now, Democratic Party, this was not a mandate of Steve Beshear. He just got lucky that he ran against the one candidate disliked more than he is. For that, he needs to drive by Republican Headquarters in Frankfort, honk his horn and wave. However, this is an opportunity for Kentucky Democrats to steer this state through a middle course. We need (and we demand by the way) a common sense approach to government and that means no wild eye handouts of public money; it means cracking down on illegal immigration; it means thinking out of the economic box to create not only new jobs, but new types of jobs. We must reform education in this state. We spend more money per pupil than states with twice our population yet we always end up dead last year after year, decade after decade. That is not acceptable. We must finally end poverty in Appalachia.
No more promises folks. Get it done.
Williams, who was running to unseat the incumbent, but largely mediocre current governor Steve Beshear, lost handily 56% to 35% with perennial independent candidate Gatewood Galbraith bringing up the rear with an impressive 9%. Williams, known for his combative and often arrogant style, trailed throughout the campaign. Many conservatives throughout the state were largely disappointed when Williams defeated Phil Moffett in the GOP Primary. Most felt that given his prickly personality, Williams was the worse possible candidate for the statewide run.
Historically, Kentucky's Republican Party has rarely won the Governor's Mansion. The last successful candidate was Ernie Fletcher (2003-2007), who left office under a cloud of incompetence (deservedly or not, is a matter for frequent debates). Prior to Fletcher, it had been 30 years since there had been a Republican Governor, and that was the popular Louie Nunn. Absent from much of the race was any mentioned of Beshear's running mate, former Mayor-for-life, Jerry Abramson. Rumors circulated among conservative Democrats and Republicans alike that the reason for the nearly invisible Abramson was to downplay his scandal ridden latter terms and poor showing among several unions, community groups, and conservatives. William's running mate and former basketball superstar, Rich Farmer, made a few appearances on TV, but because of a pending divorce (announced shortly after the campaign began), kept it low key. A poor decision in my opinion given the popularity of Farmer in a state crazy about college basketball and its players.
The Republican down ticket took its "thumpin'" along with Williams. Todd P'Pool lost to the incumbent Jack Conway for Attorney General by a only 10% (55% to 45%). Many saw this as Conway's last chance to have any political relevance given a history of defeats for higher office. Conway managed to hang on against a powerful P'Pool. campaign. This is guy to watch for future races. As for Conway, he's been given another respite. Let's hope he uses it well.
In the race for race for Secretary of State, Republican Bill Johnson lost to Alison Lundergan Grimes. Johnson was often criticized for having a "bad temper" and being "combative". The truth, however, may be that Johnson was just getting a bit tired of having his positions misrepresented. Regardless, Alison Grimes, the daughter of former Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan, ran a great (and occasionally humorous) campaign. I expect good things from Alison. The final count was 61% to 39%.
Kentucky State Treasurer went to incumbent Todd Hollenbach, son of the locally infamous County Judge of forced busing days back in the mid-1970s. In his defense, Todd is nice guy; intelligent and committed to doing a good job. Hollenbach beat KC Crosbie, the Republican, by 49% to 47% with the Libertarian, Ken Moellman picking up the spread. Let me tell you something about KC Crosbie. She is smart as a whip. With the right campaign manager, this gal can win and win big. If the GOP powers-that-be had any common sense, they would get behind and stay behind KC. She has the potential to be the first Republican female governor (and only the second female governor behind Martha Lane Collins).
Adam Edelen won as Kentucky Auditor over John Kemper 56% to 44%. While Edelen ran a good campaign, this was more about how not to run a campaign by the Republican. Rule #1: Do a background check for baggage. You can bet your opponent will. If you have any, maybe you should bow out.
The only Republican to escape a trip to the woodshed was James Comer, who ran on something rare in politics today...the truth. Comer didn't try to pretend to be anything other than what he is, a farmer who wanted to be Kentucky's next Agriculture Commissioner. Kentuckians rewarded Comer with a 64% to 35% win over part time comedian Bob Farmer (only in Kentucky folks).
The Kentucky Republican Party needs to decide whether it wants to win elections at the state and local levels or remain a "also ran" party. With my 35+ years of experience as a candidate, campaign manager and strategist, the GOP needs to apologize to the every conservative in the state for its lackluster performance, as well as its lack of aggression, imagination, and organization.
Now, Democratic Party, this was not a mandate of Steve Beshear. He just got lucky that he ran against the one candidate disliked more than he is. For that, he needs to drive by Republican Headquarters in Frankfort, honk his horn and wave. However, this is an opportunity for Kentucky Democrats to steer this state through a middle course. We need (and we demand by the way) a common sense approach to government and that means no wild eye handouts of public money; it means cracking down on illegal immigration; it means thinking out of the economic box to create not only new jobs, but new types of jobs. We must reform education in this state. We spend more money per pupil than states with twice our population yet we always end up dead last year after year, decade after decade. That is not acceptable. We must finally end poverty in Appalachia.
No more promises folks. Get it done.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Election 2011
Every since my campaign of 2004, I do two things every election cycle as a matter of principle. First, I urge my fellow Kentuckians to show up at the polls and vote. Voting is the most powerful weapon we have to protect the great nation from the bumbling and inept to the corrupt and cynical politician. Big Money and its lobbyist paymasters need us to stay home. They have enough cronies to show and get their hiring elected. Our votes carry more power than all their money combined. Don't believe me?
Did you know that in 2008, candidates nationwide spent a total of $5.3 billion dollars to get elected? Most of that came from corporate donors and PACs. In 2004, the year I ran, candidates spent $4.2 billion dollars. Obama raised an incredible $610 million dollars (by the way, how does a junior Senator with little political experience raise that much money?). Combined, John McCain and Obama raised over $1 billion dollars on their races for President (in 1952, the combined total was a miserly $16 million). That's just Presidential campaigns, so what's it cost to run for the US Senate or House?
Well, according to an article by Seth Fiegerman in MainSt News entitled "The Cost of Running for Political Office" (http://www.mainstreet.com/print/19196), the average cost to run for the Senate starts at $7.6 million dollars while the average cost to run for Congress is $840,000.00 with some seats going for much more.
Sorry, but I can't help asking myself how many school lunches or miles of road that would pave. It's an obscene amount of money to spend on an election. Personally, I would love to see serious campaign finance reform and apparently so would most Americans. Approximately 70% in fact, and in another interesting tidbit, apparently so would most Republicans by a margin of two to one over Democrats (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15283.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-29-poll_N.htm).
This brings up another issue. Are we attracting the best and brightest to public office? The answer to my mind is an obvious "no". We have serious problems. We need serious thinkers, and the average person, no matter how well educated or how intelligent has that kind of money. This means that our nation's elected offices doesn't go to those best equipped to solve our country's problems, but to the richest...Republican or Democrat. Once you meet the financial requirements, it then becomes a fight between the most telegenic and best able to regurgitate empty but catchy sound bites in the most sincere sounding way in a heavily scripted media environment (at these prices, the paymasters of both parties, who happen to be one and same, can't afford any surprises).
So, with the best that modern technology and marketing talent money can buy, elections are bought while we, the general public, are given the illusion of choice. The only possible thing that can go wrong is that people like you dear reader show up an vote, which brings me to my second point.
I absolutely abhor media endorsements. Every election cycle, the media attempts to manipulate the public's perception of candidates and the issues. I suppose that's a given, but it's the newspaper which takes it a step future with their endorsement page.
I used to think that most people didn't pay much attention to the newspaper's endorsements, but over the years (I've been a political and community activist for over 35 years and my two runs for office) my opinion changed. In both cases, the editorial board of our one and only newspaper endorsed my opponent. Now, before you start thinking "oh, this is about sour grapes", hear me out.
My first run for was Metro Council. Jeffersonians had just approved to merge county and city government, and in doing so, eliminate the local 12 member Board of Aldermen, the County Judge and three County Commissioners. This was the first election for the newly formed 26 member Metro Council and "Super" Mayor. I had been a community and political activist at the time for around 27 years; holding a number of senior non-profit board and mid-level party offices. I had been asked by my local county executive to run for office while my opponent had been recruited for the opposing party at the urging of the state party executive (I had and have a reputation for thinking for myself, which some disapprove of). At the endorsement interview, my opponent, who had no political knowledge and no recent community experience, not unexpectedly couldn't answer most of the questions; had no clue (there was a third "candidate", a "ringer" who played in a band with my opponent's brother).
Well, needless to say, I was stunned when my opponent got the nod; with the editorial board citing my opponent's 15 year old previous experience as an assistant coach. Seriously? I've managed millions of dollars professionally and on behalf of non-profits for decades. I'm a disabled veteran; served as a countywide administrator for the DAV plus a host of other positions and that was the best they had? Of course, I filed a complaint but with this being the only paper in town, their arrogance carried the day. Later, when I ran for state office, the same editorial board didn't even bother with an interview, or read my material. They made a completely uninformed decision; a deliberate attempt in both cases to mislead the public in my opinion (and in case you're wondering, I neither had or have any particular ill feelings for either opponent).
I started checking out other endorsements and came across similar results. I discovered too that statements made by candidates were either taken out of context or completely wrong. I then started questioning whether newspapers should be make endorsements at all. Yes, if you agree the corporations were covered under the First Amendment, I suppose they could, but should they? If so, why not CBS, Fox, or even ESPN? I began a campaign to get the entire interview process made public, which they did a few years ago.
However, my opinion that the media should not endorse remains steadfast. I believe voters should check out the candidates and issues themselves. The aforementioned newspaper publishes a great tool called the Voter Guide which details each candidate and their position on variety of issues. It also provides contact information and web addresses. For several years now, I've urges voters to read the Voter Guide. Check out the issues and candidates for themselves and ignore the media's attempt to manipulate voter decisions. Americans have more venues of information than ever before in history. We no longer require a Big Brother approach to elections. We're big boys and girls. We can make up our own minds thank you.
Also check out the following articles:
Care - The Role of Money in Politics
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/care/moneyinpolitics.asp
Follow the Money
http://www.followthemoney.org/
Did you know that in 2008, candidates nationwide spent a total of $5.3 billion dollars to get elected? Most of that came from corporate donors and PACs. In 2004, the year I ran, candidates spent $4.2 billion dollars. Obama raised an incredible $610 million dollars (by the way, how does a junior Senator with little political experience raise that much money?). Combined, John McCain and Obama raised over $1 billion dollars on their races for President (in 1952, the combined total was a miserly $16 million). That's just Presidential campaigns, so what's it cost to run for the US Senate or House?
Well, according to an article by Seth Fiegerman in MainSt News entitled "The Cost of Running for Political Office" (http://www.mainstreet.com/print/19196), the average cost to run for the Senate starts at $7.6 million dollars while the average cost to run for Congress is $840,000.00 with some seats going for much more.
Sorry, but I can't help asking myself how many school lunches or miles of road that would pave. It's an obscene amount of money to spend on an election. Personally, I would love to see serious campaign finance reform and apparently so would most Americans. Approximately 70% in fact, and in another interesting tidbit, apparently so would most Republicans by a margin of two to one over Democrats (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15283.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-29-poll_N.htm).
This brings up another issue. Are we attracting the best and brightest to public office? The answer to my mind is an obvious "no". We have serious problems. We need serious thinkers, and the average person, no matter how well educated or how intelligent has that kind of money. This means that our nation's elected offices doesn't go to those best equipped to solve our country's problems, but to the richest...Republican or Democrat. Once you meet the financial requirements, it then becomes a fight between the most telegenic and best able to regurgitate empty but catchy sound bites in the most sincere sounding way in a heavily scripted media environment (at these prices, the paymasters of both parties, who happen to be one and same, can't afford any surprises).
So, with the best that modern technology and marketing talent money can buy, elections are bought while we, the general public, are given the illusion of choice. The only possible thing that can go wrong is that people like you dear reader show up an vote, which brings me to my second point.
I absolutely abhor media endorsements. Every election cycle, the media attempts to manipulate the public's perception of candidates and the issues. I suppose that's a given, but it's the newspaper which takes it a step future with their endorsement page.
I used to think that most people didn't pay much attention to the newspaper's endorsements, but over the years (I've been a political and community activist for over 35 years and my two runs for office) my opinion changed. In both cases, the editorial board of our one and only newspaper endorsed my opponent. Now, before you start thinking "oh, this is about sour grapes", hear me out.
My first run for was Metro Council. Jeffersonians had just approved to merge county and city government, and in doing so, eliminate the local 12 member Board of Aldermen, the County Judge and three County Commissioners. This was the first election for the newly formed 26 member Metro Council and "Super" Mayor. I had been a community and political activist at the time for around 27 years; holding a number of senior non-profit board and mid-level party offices. I had been asked by my local county executive to run for office while my opponent had been recruited for the opposing party at the urging of the state party executive (I had and have a reputation for thinking for myself, which some disapprove of). At the endorsement interview, my opponent, who had no political knowledge and no recent community experience, not unexpectedly couldn't answer most of the questions; had no clue (there was a third "candidate", a "ringer" who played in a band with my opponent's brother).
Well, needless to say, I was stunned when my opponent got the nod; with the editorial board citing my opponent's 15 year old previous experience as an assistant coach. Seriously? I've managed millions of dollars professionally and on behalf of non-profits for decades. I'm a disabled veteran; served as a countywide administrator for the DAV plus a host of other positions and that was the best they had? Of course, I filed a complaint but with this being the only paper in town, their arrogance carried the day. Later, when I ran for state office, the same editorial board didn't even bother with an interview, or read my material. They made a completely uninformed decision; a deliberate attempt in both cases to mislead the public in my opinion (and in case you're wondering, I neither had or have any particular ill feelings for either opponent).
I started checking out other endorsements and came across similar results. I discovered too that statements made by candidates were either taken out of context or completely wrong. I then started questioning whether newspapers should be make endorsements at all. Yes, if you agree the corporations were covered under the First Amendment, I suppose they could, but should they? If so, why not CBS, Fox, or even ESPN? I began a campaign to get the entire interview process made public, which they did a few years ago.
However, my opinion that the media should not endorse remains steadfast. I believe voters should check out the candidates and issues themselves. The aforementioned newspaper publishes a great tool called the Voter Guide which details each candidate and their position on variety of issues. It also provides contact information and web addresses. For several years now, I've urges voters to read the Voter Guide. Check out the issues and candidates for themselves and ignore the media's attempt to manipulate voter decisions. Americans have more venues of information than ever before in history. We no longer require a Big Brother approach to elections. We're big boys and girls. We can make up our own minds thank you.
Also check out the following articles:
Care - The Role of Money in Politics
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/care/moneyinpolitics.asp
Follow the Money
http://www.followthemoney.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)