House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he wants lawmakers to address the issue of the Confederate flag in a bipartisan manner. (Speaker.gov)

By Paul Kane and Abby Phillip July 9 at 8:45 PM

 

 

 

“The majority of people that actually died in the Civil War on the Confederate side didn’t own slaves…”

 

Three weeks after a racially motivated massacre in a black church in Charleston, S.C., the Confederate battle flag will no longer fly on the grounds of the South Carolina State House, following a bitter debate over its role as a symbol of racism and hate.

The shooting that left nine dead at Emanuel AME Church and subsequent images of the alleged gunman holding the battle flag set off a national debate about the flag’s meaning and history. On Thursday, Gov. Nikki Haley (R) signed legislation to remove the flag, which has flown over the capitol’s dome or on its grounds since 1961.

The furor over the flag rippled through the halls of Congress on Thursday when House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called for a review of Confederate symbols and memorabilia, which is likely to include those on display in the Capitol.

 

Boehner was forced to halt consideration of a government funding measure after it became engulfed by the Confederate flag controversy and whether it was appropriate to display the flags at national cemeteries where Confederate soldiers are buried.

The dispute pitted Southern conservatives who asserted that the tradition was part of their heritage against members of the Congressional Black Caucus who view the flag as a symbol of slavery and oppression.

 

The heated tone on Capitol Hill stood in contrast to the jubilant, bipartisan scene nearly 500 miles to the south, in Columbia, S.C. There, flanked by Democratic and Republican leaders past and present, Haley declared it a “great day” for the state.

“This is a story about the history of South Carolina. And how the action of nine individuals laid out this long chain of events that forever showed the state of South Carolina what love and forgiveness looks like,” she said, referring to the victims’ relatives who spoke at suspect Dylann Roof’s bond hearing.

The flag was scheduled to be lowered at 10 a.m. Friday and moved to a state museum for display.

On Thursday, the NCAA lifted a ban enacted in 2000 that has prevented the state from being considered to host championship games, and the NAACP said it will stop calling for a tourism and travel boycott of the state.

 

Lawmakers in the state House of Representatives slogged through more than 13 hours of debate Wednesday night and Thursday morning, at times becoming deeply emotional and tense. Efforts by Republicans to amend the bill threatened to derail the legislative process.

Both sides agreed to a compromise that allowed the bill to move forward without any ­changes. Just after 1 a.m. Thursday, lawmakers voted 94 to 20 in favor of the flag’s removal. Earlier in the week, the Senate swiftly debated the same proposal and overwhelmingly approved it.

 

As those final hours transpired, congressional Republicans stumbled into the heated flag debate through a series of miscalculations. That began with their decision late Wednesday to allow a House vote on an amendment that would have reaffirmed the ability to place the Confederate flag in national cemeteries as part of a once-a-year tradition in the Deep South.

House Democrats accused Republicans of catering to the large and powerful Southern conservative bloc. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to exploit the tragedy of the killings in Charleston and the decision by South Carolina lawmakers to remove the flag from the capitol.

Boehner tried to tamp down the dispute by announcing that he would create an informal bipartisan group to review all matters related to the display of Confederate memorabilia. He pulled the overall legislation, which would provide annual funds for the Interior Department, rather than hold a vote on the Confederate flag amendment.

That vote was originally set for late Thursday afternoon, nearly the exact time Haley signed legislation removing the flag.

[South Carolina governor signs bill removing Confederate flag from State House grounds]

Republicans leaders have tried to move beyond the old fights over the Confederate flag in the aftermath of the slaying of nine African-Americans inside the historic Charleston church. Boehner was among national Republican leaders who embraced Haley’s role in removing the flag, and he pointedly said Thursday that he did not believe Confederate flags should be displayed in national cemeteries.

 

“Listen, we all witnessed the people of Charleston and the people of South Carolina come together in a respectful way to deal with, frankly, what was a very horrific crime and a difficult issue with the Confederate flag,” Boehner told reporters. “I actually think it’s time for some adults here in the Congress to actually sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. I do not want this to become some political football.”

[Democrats increasingly think the Confederate flag is racist. Republicans don’t.]

Democrats responded by reintroducing a resolutionthat would have mandated the removal of Mississippi’s state flag from display on U.S. Capitol grounds because its design incorporates the Confederate battle flag. That resolution, offered by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was tabled on a mostly partisan vote that referred it to a committee.

Other Democrats have called for the removal of statues of Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders that are prominently displayed in the Capitol. In floor speeches throughout the day, Democrats stood in front of an image of the Confederate flag on the House floor.

“The red in this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by African American slaves,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Southern Republicans said that their Democratic colleagues did not understand that they were trying to pay tribute to fallen Confederate soldiers who were not plantation owners.

“The majority of people that actually died in the Civil War on the Confederate side didn’t own slaves. These were people that were fighting for their states, and, you know, I don’t think they even had any thoughts about slavery,” said Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

He rejected the position of Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader in the civil rights movement, who called the flag a symbol of oppression.

“Does he understand where I’m coming from?” Westmoreland said. “Well, if I believe it comes from heritage, does he understand where I’m coming from?”

 

CONTINUE READING…

Ole Kaintuck Trading Post

“Little by little, we’ve allowed our freedom to slip away,” Mr. Paul said

WASHINGTON — The government’s authority to sweep up vast quantities of phone records in the hunt for terrorists was set to expire at 12:01 a.m. Monday after Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, blocked an extension of the program during an extraordinary and at times caustic Sunday session of the Senate.

Still, the Senate signaled that it was ready to curtail the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection program with likely passage this week of legislation that would shift the storage of telephone records from the government to the phone companies. The House overwhelmingly passed that bill last month. Senators voted, 77 to 17, on Sunday to take up the House bill.

Mr. Paul’s stand may have forced the temporary expiration of parts of the post-9/11 Patriot Act used by the National Security Agency to collect phone records, but he was helped by the miscalculation of Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who sent the Senate on a weeklong vacation after blocking the House bill before Memorial Day.

Photo

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who was headed to Capitol Hill on Sunday, said he would block the rapid passage of a bill allowing a national surveillance program. Credit Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Mr. McConnell, also of Kentucky, relented Sunday, setting up a final round of votes on Tuesday or Wednesday that will most likely send a compromise version of the House bill to President Obama for his signature. Even Mr. Paul, using the procedural weapon of an objection, conceded he could not stop that.

“Little by little, we’ve allowed our freedom to slip away,” Mr. Paul said during a lengthy floor soliloquy.

The expiration of surveillance authority demonstrates a profound shift in American attitudes since the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when national security was pre-eminent in both parties. Fourteen years after that attack, even as American conflicts continue abroad, a swell of privacy concerns stemming from both the vast expansion of communication systems and an increasing distrust of government’s use of data has turned those concerns on their head.

While it would represent a retrenchment on the part of the government, it does not end the argument over the dual imperatives of security and individual liberty brought to light by Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency.

The expiration of three key provisions of the Patriot Act means that, for now, the N.S.A. will no longer collect newly created logs of Americans’ phone calls in bulk. It also means that the F.B.I. cannot invoke the Patriot Act to obtain, for new investigations, wiretap orders that follow a suspect who changes phones, wiretap orders for a “lone wolf” terrorism suspect not linked to a group, or court orders to obtain business records relevant to an investigation.

However, the Justice Department may invoke a so-called grandfather clause to keep using those powers for investigations that had started before June 1, and there are additional workarounds investigators may use to overcome the lapse in the authorizations.

Mr. McConnell and other national security hawks who failed to continue the program badly underestimated the shift in the national mood, which has found its voice with Democrats and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. The moment also put him at odds with Mr. Paul, whom he has endorsed for president.

“I remain determined to work toward the best outcome for the American people possible under the circumstances,” Mr. McConnell said. “This is where we are, colleagues — a House-passed bill with some serious flaws, and an inability to get a short-term extension to improve the House bill.”

Mr. Paul’s effort clearly angered many of his Republican colleagues, who met without him an hour before the Senate began to vote Sunday night. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who sparred with Mr. Paul on the floor over procedure, said later that Mr. Paul was not fit for the White House job he seeks. “I’ve said on many occasions that I believe he would be the worst candidate we could put forward,” he said.

Even as senators were trickling into the Capitol from the airport, Mr. McConnell attempted to extend some aspects of the law. He asked senators to consider a two-week continuation of the federal authority to track a “lone wolf” terrorism suspect not connected to a state sponsor and to conduct “roving” surveillance of a suspect, rather than of a phone number alone, to combat terrorists who frequently discard cellphones.

But Mr. Paul objected, and Mr. McConnell denounced from the Senate floor what he called “a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation” about the program.

Mr. McConnell then moved to a second option, a procedural move to take up the bill passed by the House, which he said the Senate would amend this week. It was unclear Sunday how many amendments, including any from Mr. Paul, would be considered and whether any could pass the Senate or be adopted by the House.

The House bill would overhaul the Patriot Act and scale back the bulk collection of phone records revealed by Mr. Snowden. Under the provisions of the House bill, sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called national security letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies and could be retrieved by intelligence agencies only after approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

President Obama and his director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., have made dire warnings in recent days about the perils of letting the law expire and called for immediate approval of a surveillance bill passed by the House. “This shouldn’t and can’t be about politics,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address. “This is a matter of national security.”

The C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, echoed the president on Sunday during an interview on the CBS show “Face the Nation,” saying there had “been a little too much political grandstanding” and adding that “these tools are important to American lives.”

Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, also urged the Senate to act, citing the threat of groups like the Islamic State. “Al Qaeda, ISIL and other terrorists around the globe continue to plot attacks on America and our allies,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “Anyone who is satisfied with letting this critical intelligence capability go dark isn’t taking the terrorist threat seriously.”

Mr. McConnell had sought to get a series of short-term extensions passed so that Congress could continue to work on a compromise — like giving the phone companies more time to adapt to the new law — but that effort collapsed under the objections of Mr. Paul and two Democrats, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico. Further, members of the House rejected extending the current law, given the wide support for their bill.

After a middle-of-the-night vote for a short-term extension failed on the Saturday before Memorial Day, senators left for a weeklong recess as the clock ticked. Senate Republican leaders sought a compromise that would make a new bill acceptable to both hawkish lawmakers and Mr. Paul. “I still have deep concerns,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

Over the week, negotiators on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had laid out a series of options to revise the bipartisan USA Freedom Act, including the addition of a certification process to ensure that the technology is ready to move metadata storage to the phone companies and allowing for a longer transition to phone company storage of the data. The House negotiators were skeptical of all efforts.

Democrats were critical of Mr. McConnell on Sunday night. “The job of the leader is to have a plan,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada said on the Senate floor. “In this case, it is clear the majority leader simply didn’t have a plan.”

A version of this article appears in print on June 1, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Senate, in Reversal, Turns Toward Limits on Spying.

CONTINUE READING…

Paul vows to return to Capitol Hill on Sunday to block bill, end NSA spying

Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul says he’ll try to block last-ditch efforts Sunday to renew NSA and other anti-terrorist and surveillance programs.

“I will force the expiration of the NSA illegal spy program,” Paul, also a 2016 presidential candidate, said Saturday. “I am ready and willing to start the debate on how we fight terrorism without giving up our liberty.”

The Libertarian-minded Paul led a filibuster-like effort over the Memorial Day weekend that helped block legislation to extend federal surveillance efforts but suggested upon leaving the Senate chambers that he might reconsider.

“It depends,” he said. “Sometimes things change as deadlines approach.”

Barring a last-minute deal in Congress, three post-Sept. 11 surveillance laws used against spies and terrorists will expire when Sunday turns into Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called back the upper chamber for a rare Sunday session to decide on whether to accept a House-passed bill that extends the programs. Congress would then send the measure to President Obama to sign before midnight.

The House’s USA Freedom Act passed overwhelmingly in the Republican-controlled chamber but fell three votes short of the 60 needed to proceed in the Senate. And efforts in the upper chamber to extend the current law also have failed.

Much of the debate has focuses on the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ telephone calling records, authorized under one of the expiring provisions, Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Independent evaluations have cast doubt on that program’s importance, and even law enforcement officials say in private that losing this ability would not carry severe consequences.

Yet the fight over those records has jeopardized other surveillance programs that have broad, bipartisan support and could fall victim to congressional gridlock.

The FBI uses Section 215 to collect other business records tied to specific terrorism investigations.

A separate section in the post-9/11 Patriot Act allows the FBI to eavesdrop, via wiretaps, on suspected terrorists or spies who discard phones to dodge surveillance. A third provision, targeting “lone wolf” attackers, has never been used and thus may not be missed if it lapses.

If the Freedom Act becomes law, the business-records provision and the roving-wiretap authority would return immediately. The NSA would resume collecting American telephone records for a six-month period while shifting to a system of searching phone company records case by case.

If no agreement is reached, all the provisions will expire.

A third possibility is a temporary extension of current law while lawmakers work out a deal, but House members have expressed opposition.

“I have fought for several years now to end the illegal spying of the NSA on ordinary Americans,” Paul also said in a statement released Saturday. “Let me be clear: I acknowledge the need for a robust intelligence agency and for a vigilant national security. I believe we must fight terrorism. …  But we do not need to give up who we are to defeat them.”

Failure to pass the legislation would mean new barriers for the government in domestic, national-security investigations, at a time when intelligence officials say the threat at home is growing.

Government and law enforcement officials, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have said in recent days that letting the wiretap and business records provisions expire would undercut the FBI’s ability to investigate terrorism and espionage.

Lynch said it would mean “a serious lapse in our ability to protect the American people.” Clapper said in a statement Friday that prompt passage by the Senate of the House bill “is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of our ability to protect the American people.”

And President Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to accuse opponents of hijacking the debate for political reasons. “Terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL aren’t suddenly going to stop plotting against us at midnight tomorrow, and we shouldn’t surrender the tools that help keep us safe,” he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.

Civil liberties activists say the pre-Sept. 11 law gives the FBI enough authority to do its job. To bolster their case, they cite a newly released and heavily blacked out report by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog that examined the FBI’s use up to 2009 of business record collection under Section 215.

“The government has numerous other tools, including administrative and grand jury subpoenas, which would enable it to gather necessary information,” in terrorism investigations, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement.

Section 215 allows the FBI to serve a secret order requiring a business to hand over records relevant to a terrorism or espionage investigation. The FBI uses the authority “fewer than 200 times a year,” Director James Comey said last week.

The inspector general’s report said it was used in “investigations of groups comprised of unknown members and to obtain information in bulk concerning persons who are not the subjects of or associated with an authorized FBI investigation.”

But from 2007 to 2009, the report said, none of that material had cracked a specific terrorism case.

The report analyzed several cases, but most of the details are blacked out. In some cases, the FBI agent pronounced the 215 authority “useful” or “effective,” but the context and detail were censored.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

CONTINUE READING…

How Mitch McConnell got the Senate working again

The human trafficking bill should have been a no-brainer. When Democrats manufactured an obstruction, McConnell kept his team together and forced a compromise to move the Loretta Lynch nomination and the trafficking bill together.

By John Feehery, Voices contributor April 24, 2015

 

I wouldn’t want to play Texas hold-em with Mitch McConnell.

To win at the iconic poker game, featured often on ESPN and the Discovery Channel, you have to have patience.

You have to strike when you have favorable cards, bluff when you don’t, and put all the chips on the table when you are confident of victory.

Nobody is better at this than the Senate majority leader from Kentucky. 

Test your knowledge So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.

Time and time again, Mr. McConnell has made a virtue out of his patience.

The deal to confirm Loretta Lynch perfectly exemplified this virtue.

No Republican wanted Eric Holder to stay in his current position any longer than necessary, but Lynch proved to be a good bargaining chip in a struggle to pass a human trafficking bill.

Passing that bill should have been a no-brainer, but Democrats, desperate to paint Republicans as anti-abortion extremists for political reasons, manufactured an objection to a long-agreed-to compromise, named for former Illinois Republican Henry Hyde, that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for abortions.

McConnell didn’t buckle, kept his team together, and forced a compromise to move both Lynch and the Human Trafficking bill together.

The newly minted Republican leader has a history of waiting patiently to play his cards.

When the House passed a compromise to finally fix permanently a flaw in the formula to pay doctors in the Medicare program, McConnell took his time in having the Senate consider it, making certain that his colleagues had a chance to have their amendments considered.

When Congress failed to pass a terrorism risk insurance bill at the end of last year, McConnell didn’t panic. Instead he waited until the new majority was firmly in place, and he calmly passed it as one of the first business items.

When the Senate considered a Keystone pipeline bill after TRIA passed, he was happy to allow for an open process, so open that the Senate considered more amendments in one day that it did in a year under the previous regime.

That patience also manifested itself when McConnell was in the minority. He was the one who staved off the fiscal cliff and cut a deal with the vice president that made permanent 98% of the Bush tax cuts, a victory that doesn’t get nearly enough credit.

While McConnell has been patient, he has also been relentless in pushing for regular order, which is why the Senate passed a budget resolution in March and is expected to pass a conference report before the Memorial Day recess.

It may be a surprise to the general public, but it is no surprise to Mitch McConnell that the Senate is working again, they way it is supposed to work. In McConnell’s mind, it just takes a little patience.

John Feehery publishes his Feehery Theory blog at http://www.thefeeherytheory.com/ .

CONTINUE READING…

This is an open letter to Jack Conway about the Democratic primary campaign for Governor of Kentucky

Geoffrey M Young

https://www.facebook.com/geoffrey.m.young.9?fref=nf

 

Public Debate Challenge #2: The death penalty.

This is an open letter to Jack Conway about the Democratic primary campaign for Governor of Kentucky, which officially started on Tuesday, January 27 when I filed the papers and named my new running mate for Lt. Governor, Johnathan Masters.

I don’t throw around the word “unethical” lightly, but your refusal to date to contact me to set up a series of debates is an unethical campaign tactic. It constitutes an admission that you don’t care whether Kentucky’s registered Democrats have all the information they need to decide who would make the better candidate for Governor, you or I. You also don’t seem to care whether they have enough information to decide who would make the better Governor of Kentucky, you or I.

You seem to be trying to coast to victory in the Dem primary on 5/19/15 using the pile of cash you’ve amassed over the last several months. Enabled by biased reporters such as Sam Youngman of the Lexington H-L, you seem to be trying to pretend I don’t exist. That’s unethical. I’ll say it again: It’s unethical for any candidate to refuse to debate with his opponent about the most important issues, especially when it comes to a Democratic primary. However many ethical failings the 4 Republican candidates might have – and they have a great many – at least none of them is unethical enough to pretend he has no opponents.

Stan Lee (R) used this unethical strategy against me in our campaign for the Ky House in 2012 in Fayette County. Elisabeth Jensen used the same unethical strategy against me in 2014 during the Dem primary. Her unethical strategy worked well enough to earn her the nomination against Andy Barr (R), but Barr went on to crush her in the general election because she was way out of her depth. She had no experience in politics and I had 35 years. I won 39% of the Dem vote on 5/20/14 anyway, even though she spent 9 times as much money. I’m quite convinced that I would’ve been able to beat Barr if I had received any support at all from the Dem Party Establishment in this state.

If you keep refusing to reply to my debate challenges, you’ll conclusively prove to the voters of Kentucky that you’re just one more unethical politician who doesn’t deserve their respect or their vote either in May or November (if you defeat me in May).

Has your position on the death penalty changed since December, 2011? http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/…/jack-conway-wants-to-continu…/

Public Debate Challenge #2 – Geoff Young (D) vs. Jack Conway (D)

The topic: “Should the death penalty in Kentucky be abolished forever?”

Location: Any indoor facility in Kentucky that can accommodate live TV coverage

Time: 7:00 pm or 8:00 pm, precise time TBD

Possible dates: February 3, 4, 6, 9, or 10, TBD by mutual agreement

Sponsoring organization: the Kentucky Democratic Party

Moderator: TBD

Please call me at (859) 278-4966 at your earliest convenience to hammer out these details.

Campaign web site: young4ky.com

O.K. EVERYONE THIS IS YOUR DAILY REMINDER THAT WE NEED SIGNATURES ON KCHHI !!

 

 

 

 

THE PETITION IS LOCATED HERE: (DIRECT LINK) http://www.petition2congress.com/9641/kentucky-cannabis-hemp-health-initiative-2013-2014/  

 

It is my opinion that this is the Initiative we should be getting as many signatures on as possible so that we, as a group, can go to Sen. McConnells office at an opportune time and present it to him.

At the same time we could have groups of people in each district present it to their Representatives. This represents true repeal of prohibition on the Cannabis Plant in Kentucky. It needs to be presented as soon as possible, before February 17th,  I would say, in order to have a chance at getting someone in office to back us for the 2016 Legislative Session. Please leave your comments and thoughts on this.

 Read the initiative and then just for the hell of it lets see how many signatures we can get before the 30th of January.

Part II convenes Feb 3rd. Last day for new bill requests is the 6th. I know we can’t find a sponsor by then for this year but if we all show up in Committee meetings which would be every Tuesday at 11:30 for Agriculture and Wednesday at 10 am for Health and Welfare maybe we can give a least a good showing of taking back our human rights to this plant – medical and all.

If we can get 1000 signatures on the petition I will print it out and mail it POSTAL to every Senator. and Representative. in the state.

A lot of you all have been in Frankfort to the meetings, I haven’t. According to the website anyone will be admitted to them. Let me know how this works.

 http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.org/index.php/en/kchhi

Thanks to everyone showing support for this idea.

It may be bold but it may be the way to bring an end to (State) Prohibition in Kentucky!  We still have to worry about Federal.

Sheree Krider

shereekrider@usmjparty.com

Much at stake in struggle for control of Kentucky House

By Jack Brammer

jbrammer@herald-leader.com    September 6, 2014

 

FRANKFORT — Under a broiling sun Thursday in front of the Kentucky Capitol, House Republican Leader Jeff Hoover explained and expounded on his vision for a Republican-led state House.

With about 20 candidates from the Grand Old Party behind him, Hoover talked about overhauling the tax code, repealing an expansion of Medicaid under “Obamacare,” passing “right-to-work” legislation that would allow people to work in businesses that have unions without joining the union, creating medical review panels to curb frivolous lawsuits, and implementing a host of other conservative proposals.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said he was glad Hoover held the news conference — the last one of a three-day media tour in the state to tout House Republican candidates.

“It’s a waste of time for them. The House is going to stay Democratic,” Stumbo predicted.

An intense political struggle is underway in the Bluegrass State for control of the state House in the Nov. 4 elections.

Democrats have dominated it since 1921, but Republicans have been steadily gaining on them in the last 20 years.

In 1994, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 71-29 in the House. That dipped to 64-35 in 2004. This year, it stands at 54-46.

Democrats and Republicans agree on at least one thing: Much is at stake.

Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, is concerned his last two years in office could by stymied if Republicans control both the House and Senate. Republicans took over the Senate in 2000 and maintain a solid grip on the upper chamber.

Beshear, who has been on the campaign trail for House Democratic candidates, dismissed the House GOP’s media tour and “Handshake with Kentucky” legislative platform as “the same old stuff they have touted for years.”

“They want to reduce taxes on the wealthy and put more of the tax burden on the middle class,” Beshear said. “They want to take away health care for 500,000 Kentuckians who just got it, many for the first time. They do not support the minimum wage. To me, it’s the same-old same-old.”

Hoover, a Jamestown attorney who concedes that he would like to replace Stumbo as House speaker, said the future of Kentucky is at stake.

“The people will have to decide if we are going to continue the status quo of high unemployment,” Hoover said. “Are we going to do things differently? Are we going to change the landscape to create more jobs?”

Stumbo, who has been House speaker since 2009, said Kentuckians need only look at what has happened in other states where “radical Republicans” took over in recent years to understand what’s at stake.

“You have teacher strikes, labor unrest, economic development halts,” Stumbo said. “Kentucky is coming out of a major national recession that started with Republicans. We don’t want to go back.”

Stumbo especially scoffed at two major pledges in the House Republican “Handshake” platform: ending corruption in the Kentucky House and passing a constitutional amendment that would presumably block implementation of parts of the federal health care law.

“They want to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit any person or employer being forced to participate in a care system. That’s unconstitutional,” he said.

Stumbo noted that the Affordable Care Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared constitutional, includes a penalty provision for people who do not get health insurance.

“The Republicans want to opt out of federal law,” Stumbo said. “That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Sounds like they want to boost states’ rights when we had things like slavery.”

Hoover laughed when told Stumbo said the GOP amendment was unconstitutional.

“My understanding is that other states have passed or proposed such legislation,” Hoover said. “I hear a lot of Kentuckians say they have real problems with mandated coverage. I threw it out there and it’s something we’re going to look at.”

Hoover and GOP leaders also want to repeal an expansion of Medicaid that Beshear implemented under the federal health law, saying Kentucky could face a financial crisis if the move isn’t reversed.

As of July 31, more than 521,000 Kentuckians had enrolled in coverage through Kynect, the health insurance exchange created by Beshear under the federal law. The majority of those enrolled received Medicaid, the government-funded insurance program for the poor and disabled.

The percentage of adults without health insurance in Kentucky has dropped from 20.4 percent last year to less than 12 percent, the second largest decline among the states since the federal law took effect in January, according to a Gallup poll released last month.

The federal government is paying the entire cost of the expansion for the first few years, but that drops to 90 percent in coming years.

“Where are we going to pick up the cost for this? $300 million? $500 million? $600 million?” Hoover asked. “Somebody has to talk about picking up the cost.”

Stumbo also derided the GOP’s pledge to end corruption in the Kentucky House.

Hoover this week regularly mentioned the ongoing sexual harassment scandal in the House when talking about the GOP pledge.

Sexual harassment lawsuits have been filed against former Democratic Rep. John Arnold of Sturgis. Democrat Will Coursey of Symsonia in Graves County, who is in a tight re-election fight, also has been sued on allegations that he retaliated against a Legislative Research Commission employee after she made claims about his behavior.

Both Arnold and Coursey deny any wrongdoing.

Stumbo said it’s odd that Republicans are talking about ending corruption. He highlighted three controversies involving Republicans:

■ State Rep. Ben Waide of Madisonville is under state indictment for alleged campaign finance violations but claims he did nothing wrong.

■ U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Hopkinsville is under investigation by a House ethics panel over allegations that his wife — a lobbyist for the U.S. Humane Society Legislative Fund — improperly lobbied him on behalf of legislation he is sponsoring related to show horses. He has said there was no wrongdoing.

■ Ernie Fletcher, who was governor from 2003 to 2007, was indicted in a state hiring scandal. Fletcher issued several pardons and the investigation was ended by an agreement in 2006 between Fletcher and Stumbo, who was then attorney general.

Besides a war of words on issues, the House Democrats and Republicans are conducting vigorous campaigns and trying to raise as much money as possible to pay for them.

Western Kentucky, where Republicans have gained ground in recent House elections, continues to be a prime potential spot for Republican victories, said Hoover.

He also noted that the 39th House District race in Jessamine and parts of Fayette County seems to be extremely tight.

In that race, Democrat Russ Meyer and Republican Jonah Mitchell, both of Nicholasville, are seeking to replace Democrat Bob Damron, who is running for Jessamine County judge-executive.

Last month, WHAS-TV in Louisville and CN2’s Pure Politics reported that at least six Republican state House candidates had complained that they were the targets of telephone polls that gave positive statements about the Democratic candidate before listing “possible criticisms” of the Republican candidate.

Stumbo acknowledged that Democrats have “tested” messages. “They are truthful,” he said.

It’s possible the Nov. 4 elections could produce a 50-50 split in the House, but Stumbo and Hoover downplay the possibility.

“I believe if we can even get close to 50, there would be some Democrats in the House who would switch to Republicans,” Hoover said.

Stumbo said “terrible gridlock” has occurred in states where an even split has occurred.

Jack Brammer: (502) 227-1198. Twitter: @BGPolitics. Blog: bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/06/3415395_much-at-stake-in-struggle-for.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Rand Paul abandons Ron Paul on war and peace

Months ago, the isolationism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was so extreme that I said he might as well be President Bashar Assad’s man in Washington, referring to the Syrian dictator and murderer at a time when Rand Paul was following the policy of Ron Paul of extreme non-intervention. Times have changed, or shall I say Rand Paul’s calculations have changed, so his positions have changed.

Now Sen. Paul mocks President Obama over the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and vows to be a super-hawk going after ISIS. I guess when it’s time to raise campaign money for a presidential campaign, and time to court neoconservatives, and time to appeal to a GOP that does not favor extreme isolationism, the new Rand Paul now debates the old Rand Paul, while he throws under the bus the principled stand of the only true Ron Paul.

When Rand Paul suggests that Obama has created a “jihadist wonderland,” can he deny every jihadi in the world would have spent recent years cheering Rand Paul’s extremism isolationism? He not only reveals a lack of depth and commitment on national security, and reveals the kind of shallow opportunism that voters reject in politicians today, but he abandons the long legacy of the principled foreign policy of Ron Paul.

Regarding Iraq, I agreed with Ron Paul and opposed the invasion of Iraq by Bush 43, while on some other issues I disagreed with his noninterventionism. But Ron Paul, unlike Rand Paul, took a highly principled position, which I respect.

At various times Rand Paul has been against action on Syria before he was for it. He was for cutting aid to Israel before he was against it. At one point, he appeared to be for and against action against Iran at the same time. Rand Paul’s views on national security are like the old soap opera “As the World Turns.” What will Rand Paul believe tomorrow about war and peace? Who knows? In presidential politics, unlike Ron Paul, it is political calculation that determines Rand Paul’s military policies in what may be titled “As Rand Paul Turns.”

Folks, the gentleman from Kentucky is not ready to be commander-in-chief, not even close. He makes Barack Obama look like British Prime Minister Winston Churchill by comparison. And now he throws Ron Paul’s foreign policy position under the bus, which will not persuade neoconservatives or mainline Republicans that he is ready to be commander-in-chief, but may persuade many Ron Paul supporters that like father is not always like son.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/216820-rand-paul-abandons-ron-paul-on-war-and-peace#ixzz3CXCXhBf3
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Mitch McConnell’s campaign manager quits in the wake of Iowa Ron Paul scandal

 

 

 

 

The campaign manager for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has resigned as a result of the ongoing scandal involving the 2012 presidential campaign of former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.

Jesse Benton joined the McConnell campaign for the 2014 cycle, after several years as an important member of the political organizations of Ron Paul and his son, Kentucky’s other U.S. Sen. Rand Paul. Benton previously managed Rand Paul’s 2010 Senate campaign, and then served as political director for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. In addition, he is married to one of Ron Paul’s granddaughters.

This past week, a former Iowa state senator pled guilty to accepting payments of $73,000, which were laundered by members of the Ron Paul campaign, to switch his endorsement away from Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and over to Paul. However, no individuals have actually been charged as of yet with making the payments.

For his own part, Benton is denying any allegations that he may have known about the payments. “I hope those who know me recognize that I strive to be a man of integrity,” Benton said in a statement. “The press accounts and rumors are particularly hurtful because they are false.”

Benton also said that the reelection of McConnell, who is in a close race against Democratic nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes, was the most important political cause for Kentucky and the country: “I believe this deep in my bones, and I would never allow anything or anyone to get in the way. That includes myself.”

– – Eric Kleefeld

CONTINUE READING…