Tangled in Kentucky

As the Republican Party collapses into an orgy of sadism, dishonesty, and corruption, we have to start to figure out how to operate effectively in an environment where we are the majority party with very serious problems to solve.  That means our biggest hurdle is, as usual for majority parties, the Senate, where filibusters can stop progressive legislation.  The most skilled Senator on the right at procedural obstacles and politicking is Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader.  Unless we get rid of him, he will stand in the way of progressive legislation for twenty years. 

Fortunately, he's not very popular in his home state and is up for reelection in 2008.  Though he has raised millions, in terms of his political position he's so weak that he's putting out loaded polling to front his numbers.  His Iraq stance is costing him, with antiwar groups going after him with hundreds of thousands in ads.  And he's going to be in the national spotlight representing the GOP, which will put him at odds with the Kentucky public.  In 2006, nearby Indiana saw three districts flip from Republican to Democrat, Kentucky flipped one, and Singer noted that Ohio shifted dramatically in terms of its party allegiance.  This is a realigning region, with economic populism working.  The state isn't as labor-oriented as Ohio, with a more Appalachian and Southern flavor, but as we saw in Virginia in 2006 that kind of messaging works all over.  Moreoever, with Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher unbelievably unpopular, McConnell may have a weight around his neck symbolizing his big business fueled machine which includes his free trade stances and his shady connections with China.

That said, there's a potentially serious problem brewing.  The Kentucky Democratic Party is the worst party in the country, corrupt insular, and possibly favoring Mitch McConnell's reelection.  Currently, there's a gubernatorial primary in the Democratic race between Bruce Lunsford and Steve Beshear.  Beshear is a pretty good candidate, and he's leading in the polls by about 9 points over Lunsford.

Lunsford, though, is a walking disaster, and if he wins the primary, McConnell is going to have the advantage in 2008.  Lunsford will undermine the Senate candidate, as he's done in the past.  It's really odd that Lunsford is supported by party insiders.  He's a big donor to Republicans; from 1995-2000, he gave $52,000 to political candidates, 77% of which went to Republicans.  In 2006, he gave more to Republican Anne Northrup than to her Democratic challenger and current Congressman John Yarmuth.  He's also a strong Republican ally.  In 2003, after he promised to support the eventual gubernatorial nominee, he endorsed Republican Ernie Fletcher anyway.  Elaine Chao, current Secretary of Labor and wife of Mitch McConnell, is on the board of the company he ran.  Lunsford is also corrupt, with his nursing home company Vencor involved in Medicare fraud, bankrupcty, 'patient dumping', and shareholder rip-offs.  It's really really bad, and there's more here.

Lunsford isn't a Democrat, he's a greedy rich guy who has the support of party insiders.  If he gets the nomination, he's going to undermine the campaign against Mitch McConnell.  In addition, the prospect of a corrupt insider running against a corrupt insider is corrosive and cuts against a change message, which is what is necessary to realign the region.  I'll have more soon on the Kentucky Democratic Party leaders, and how they are undermining the party base in this primary.  Because of our Federalist system, local party machines that are corrupt can have huge consequences, keeping in place reactionary thugs like Mitch McConnell who can kill action on global warming for twenty years.  Local machines are basically where power comes from.  Much of the NAFTA legislative process went through Chicago, as did Clinton's campaign (and now Obama's).  Movements must be national and local in scope, because you can't untangle the two in our system.

For now, if there's anything you can do to help Beshear get the nomination, go for it.  The election is next Tuesday.

Tags: George Bush, Harry Reid, Iraq, Kentucky, Mitch McConnell (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

Re: Tangled in Kentucky

half of the Democrats in the Senate voted against a bill that, timidly, would cut funds for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Why should we continue to support these crooks and liars? With this vote, the Democrats just said that they're for the war. And in case people forgot, the Democrats controlled the Senate when Bush wanted to go to war. Why does it feel that we're being asked to keep supporting the democrats as an alternative to the Repugnicans, yet time after time we end up being played? At this point, it doesnt matter whether we have republicans or democrats...they are all the same.

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-05-16 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

And how many republicans voted for cloture?

by adamterando 2007-05-16 09:59AM | 0 recs
Agreed!

Like George Bush and Al Gore, they are all the same!

by BingoL 2007-05-16 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed!

An even better example: Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland), a pretty consistent progressive, and Randy Cunningham (R-Jail, formerly R-San Diego) an extreme and corrupt Right-winger.

All politicians vote badly sometimes. In the past, some Republicans were quite progressive, at least on some issues, but since the Right has taken over the Republican Party, there are very few of these folks left. The Democratic Party spans a very wide spectrum. A minority are progressive on all issues, but at least some of them are. And a majority are progressive on at least some issues. Because of the winner-take-all election system we have, third party candidates are seldom elected and often can only serve as spoilers.

by RandomNonviolence 2007-05-16 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

It is possible to support Democratic candidates -- because you feel they are better than their opponents -- without having to fall in love with them. All politicians, even the best, are under a lot of pressure to vote in ways we don't like. Until we can stop that pressure, the best we can do is pick the best choice and steer politicians (lobby them) to vote our way.

If you don't want to support Democrats, propose something that you do want to do and show how that will lead to the ending of the Iraq occupation. Spending your effort casting general aspersions on Democrats is not very useful or helpful.

by RandomNonviolence 2007-05-16 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

Let's see, 29 out of 48 Democrats (60 percent) voted the way you wanted. So if the whole Senate were made up of the same sort of Democrats, the vote would have been a filibuster-proof majority for cutting funds. On the other hand, if the Senate were all Republican, the vote would have been 100-0 against. Nope, no difference at all. It's obviously time to vote for Nader.

by KCinDC 2007-05-16 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

Matt, thanks for this post. Keep focusing attention on important states like Kentucky where the Republicans are fiercely Right-wing and corrupt and the Democratic Party needs a lot of upgrading. Outside attention and money could help to swing these states in a more progressive direction.

by RandomNonviolence 2007-05-16 11:49AM | 0 recs
Second This

Yes, thanks, Chris.  I keep getting pelted with Lunsford e-mails and mailers although I live in Maryland.  I almost would have given him money.

by Hellmut 2007-05-16 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

I keep hearing how Ben Chandler will want to sit this one out because he is waiting for either an open seat in 2010 or an easy take-out of Bunning. That may be his thinking, but I think it is flawed. He should run now. This view that people who lose one campaign are branded a loser going into the next needs to be subjected to some empirical scrutiny. My view -- call it the Thune Principle -- is that if they run a solid campaign, they raise their name ID and they show voters they really want the job, and it positions them well for the next one. If Chandler loses, people will say, Well, McConnell's smart and well-established, good for him for trying. And if he wins, he's a giant killer. There are no special prizes for taking out crazy old senile guy (although of course you do still get to be Senator). Plus, if we take the presidency in 08, that raises the significant possibility that 2010 will, like most mid-terms, trend against the President's party. We have the momentum NOW.

by thesleepthief 2007-05-16 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

I completely agree.  Chandler already has state-wide exposure, as he was nearly elected governor four years ago.  (His family name is also well-known as his grandfather was governor.)  And last month, the DSCC released a poll showing Chandler only trailing McConnell 45-44.    

Chandler's time is now.  Waiting until 2010 is cautious, but caution is no guaranty of results.  Who knows?  2010 could be a terrible year for Dems and/or the R's could put up a great candidate.  Chandler needs to run now.  If he wins, McConnell is gone and Bunning is next.  If he loses, he will at least have put McConnell's seat in play (forcing R's to fight there at the expense of other seats), and Chandler would be a giant favorite for 2010.  

by hilltopper 2007-05-16 12:29PM | 0 recs
Suppose 2010 is a bad year for Democrats.

They are not many Democratic incumbents that are going to lose.
Dodd-CT
Inouye-HI
Obama-IL
Bayh-IN
Mikulski-MD
Reid-NV
Schumer-NY
Dorgan-ND-vulnerable if Hoeven runs
Wyden-OR
Leahy-VT

The so called vulnerable Democratic incumbents in 2010
1)Lincoln-AR - has no top tier opponent other than Huckabee.
2)Boxer-CA- is vulnerable if the Terminator or Poznier run.- She is safe otherwise.
3)Salazar-CO- is vulnerable is ex Governor Bill Owens runs but it is unlikely to occur.
4)Murray-WA is safe
5)Feingold-WI is safe.

On the Republican side.
Incumbents like Jim Bunning are always vulnerable - Bunning is the Lauch Faircloth/Conrad Burns of 2010.

by nkpolitics 2007-05-16 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Suppose 2010 is a bad year for Democrats.

I was not suggesting that 2010 would be a bad year.  But who, in 1991, would have guessed that the Dems would get taken to the cleaners in 1994?  Can we assume that a Democratic governor elected in 2007 could never poison the Dems chances for 2010 the way the Republican governor of Ohio did for 2006?  Likely?  No.  

My point is that Chandler loses little, but could gain a lot for himself and his party, if he runs next year.  

by hilltopper 2007-05-16 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Suppose 2010 is a bad year for Democrats.
The 2007 KY election has more to do with the Fletcher scandals. Beasher is going to be the anti Fletcher. His popularity will be similar to a Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.
With regards to challenging Jim Bunning. Bunning is a weak incumbent. He is old,He is controversial.His election victories are narrow.
by nkpolitics 2007-05-18 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Suppose 2010 is a bad year for Democrats.

2010 will mean Specter and particularly Gregg will be up, so we'll have some seats ripe for hte picking, as well.

by jallen 2007-05-16 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Suppose 2010 is a bad year for Democrats.
Lets not forget Voinovich and Bond and Grassley as well as Martinez. plus McCain and lot of popular Democratic Governors are term limited
1)Napalotino-AZ
2)Sebelius-KS
3)Henry-OK
4)Rendell-PA
by nkpolitics 2007-05-17 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky
Matt,
  Thank you for taking notice of our state brother.  Indeed progressives here are uniting to stop Lunsford from buying the nomination (which is exactly what he was attempting to do).  If we can take our party back from the "good'ole boys" we will certainly have a shot at McConnell who is the bluegrass state embarrassment.
  Attention from the mydd progressive community will go a long way toward re-making this state blue.  Remember, we are south of the mason-dixon and are holding the line against the wacko conservative policies of the south like "right to work for less."
  Look at our new congressman from KY-03 and you'll see what we could look like with the correct leadership.  May 22nd will be a big test to see what our future holds.
  Thanks again for the focus.
by kentuckydave 2007-05-16 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Tangled in Kentucky

Kentucky has only one progressive candidate running for governor. That's Gatewood Galbraith.

Galbraith is a perennial candidate and has historically been portrayed as the "marijuana" candidate.

Galbraith has broadened his appeal to include legalizing all things hemp. As more people learn about medical marijuana, and the fuel potential of hemp, Galbraith's chances seems to have improved.

According to one survey conducted by WKYT on February 20, 2007, it showed Beshear with 24.7% and Galbraith running second with 18%. http://www.wkyt.com/polls?pollID=5572351

This poll may have been instrumental in causing Jonathan MIller to drop out and throw his support to Beshear.

Miller doesn't seem to be too fond of Galbraith.

The media for the most part, has not been too supportive of Galbraith, although he hasn't been completely ignored. The support the media has given Galbraith probably qualifies as CYA support.

The hempster vote is elusive and hard to pin down. However, it apparently played a significant role in electing John Yarmuth to Kentucky's 3rd CD seat, replacing the Republican incumbant Anne Northup. Yarmuth apparently took the lead in the polls after an attack ad by Anne Northup accused Yarmuth of being pro-marijuana.

The hempster vote apparently turned out well for Baron Hill (D), across the Ohio River in Indiana's 9th CD. Baron Hill defeated incumbent Mike Sodrel (R).

So just how well the hempster vote shows up in Kentucky's governor's race remains to be seen.

If Galbraith should win, Mitch McConnell will be toast. Even if Galbraith doesn't win, if the Democrats retain control of the House, there's a good chance that Ben Chandler may very well run against McConnell. If he does, I predict he will beat McConnell.

by Hempy 2007-05-16 07:50PM | 0 recs

Login

 

Sign-in-with-twitter-lighter

Advertise Blogads