KyKurmudgeon

1. It appears some Republicans want Mike Duncan, the chairman of the party’s national committee, to take the fall for the beating they took at the polls Nov. 4. Several reports indicate the Inez banker may have competition, perhaps from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich among others, if he seeks re-election in January. But it seems a bit odd to me that Duncan would become the scapegoat. After all, the R’s got their butts kicked because of President Bush’s disastrous policies on the economy and in Iraq, not because of the way Duncan ran the party machine. Any R who believes otherwise is in a serious state of denial. If there is any Kentuckian who should be blamed for the beating R’s took on a national basis, it is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been Bush’s enabler in chief on all those disastrous policies.

2. When the Consensus Forecasting Group meets Friday, expect an even gloomier revenue projection than the $294 million shortfall Gov. Steve Beshear’s budget analysts predicted a couple of weeks ago. Expect that gloomier forecast to cause Beshear and House Democratic leaders to suggest an increase in the cigarette tax. But since the election didn’t produce any change in Frankfort’s political dynamics, don’t expect any increase to be passed because President David  Williams still mans his roadblock in the Senate.

3. A story in The Courier-Journal Tuesday reported that the Horseshoe casino (formerly Caesar’s) has paid $740 million in Indiana state taxes in its 10 years of existence. Some $215 million of that went back to Harrison County, where the casino is located. In addition, the county got another $100 million in profit-sharing. One Indiana casino contributed a total of $840 million to the public bank accounts in 10 years. Think what nine casinos could be contributing to Kentucky’s public bank accounts. But don’t think too hard about it right now, not with the roadblock still functioning in the Senate.

Shortly after the Democratic slate of Steve Beshear and Daniel Mongiardo won the 2007 gubernatorial election, Senate President David Williams sent Mongiardo a letter urging him to resign from the state Senate so a special election to fill his 30th District seat could be held at the earliest possible time. Instead, Mongiardo waited until Dec. 11, Inauguration Day, to resign. Mongiardo’s decision prompted Williams to complain at the time, “It now will be late January at the earliest before his replacement can join the Senate, and that person will have no preparation for the job.” Williams also said a special election during the session “will undoubtedly politicize the beginning of the session and distract members from the bipartisan cooperation” Beshear and Mongiardo had been publicly promoting.

However, Williams has been strangely silent on the subject of quick special elections to fill vacant seats since Republican state Sen. Brett Guthrie won the 2nd District U.S. House race. If he has called on Guthrie to resign to facilitate that process, it was not done publicly. And if Guthrie waits until Congress convenes Jan. 6 to resign his state Senate seat, his replacement cannot be chosen before Feb. 10, 10 days into the 2009 short session of the General Assembly.

A special election cannot be called until the seat is vacant, and the law says the election can’t be held until at least 35 days after the issuance of the call (by the governor if the legislature is not in session or by the presiding officer of the chamber if the legislature is in session). Anyone elected Feb. 10 probably couldn’t be sworn in until Feb. 12 or 13, due to the process of certifying the election.

That means voters of the 32nd Senate District would be without representation during the four-day organizational session in early January, any special session that might be held between the organizational days and the main portion of the session that convenes Feb. 5 and the first nine days of the main session. Even with no special session, the district would be without representation for 12 to 13 days of a 30-day session.

And I haven’t even mentioned Williams’ concern about a special election politicizing the opening days of the session. But I’m not too concerned about that, because they’re going to be politicized anyway.

But it’s sure is strange that, after the concerns he voiced so forcefully when it was a Democratic seat up for grabs last year, Williams remains so silent this year when it’s a Republican seat up for grabs.

For the next two weeks, I once again will be filling in for absent colleagues on the now downsized H-L editorial board. I hope to keep the KyKurmudgeon blog active, but will not be writing columns during this time.

Sunday’s column:

FRANKFORT — Leftovers from a transformational national election that bypassed Kentucky:

After Bruce Lunsford gave Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a scare in the closing days of the fall campaign, some Democrats may be playing the “what if” game.

As in: What if U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler or state Auditor Crit Luallen had been the party’s candidate instead of the baggage-laden multimillionaire Louisville businessman?

But Democrats who let their minds wander in that direction ignore several important points.

At the time Chandler and Luallen opted out of the race last year, McConnell appeared farstronger than the vulnerable incumbent he became down the stretch.

And even though both Chandler and Luallen could have expected considerable help from national Democrats, it’s questionable they could have raised the kind of money Lunsford pulled out of his pockets and invested in his own campaign. It was that investment up front that put Lunsford in position to be competitive when the collapse of the financial markets put McConnell at greatest risk.

Of course, if this year’s events could have been foreseen, national Democratic organizations likely would have made sure either Chandler or Luallen had the kind of big bucks Lunsford spent on his own.

And under those circumstances, either of the two would have had a better shot at taking McConnell down because each feels far more love from the Democratic base than Lunsford does.

But absent that foresight, Chandler or Luallen might not have been able to make the kind of up-front investment necessary to be in position to take advantage when McConnell became vulnerable.

                                                         * * *

All of that said, if Lunsford had won, it would have been in spite of the campaign he ran rather than because of it.

From the outset, his was a campaign of blown opportunities, starting with his failure to make Issue No. 1 of his pitch to the public McConnell’s joined-at-the-hip relationship with the most unpopular American president in the history of polling.

Lunsford should have pounded that issue on the stump and in his ads every day from Day One. He didn’t do a good job of that.

Then, when the financial markets tanked, McConnell’s vote for a $700 million bailout should have become Issue No. 2, again pounded into the public’s consciousness on a daily basis.

Even McConnell acknowledged, in a post-election media conference call, “It was the biggest issue in the country, but it was not the biggest issue in (Kentucky) people making up their minds.”

Of course, it wasn’t — because Lunsford never exploited it. Instead, he hemmed and hawed for weeks before taking a semi-firm position on the bailout.

Finally, when McConnell’s buddy Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted on seven felony counts, Issue No. 3  pounded on a daily basis should have been the numerous summer vacations McConnell and his wife Elaine Chao spent visiting Stevens in Alaska.

Lunsford’s response consisted of about three e-mail statements to the media. If a single ad aired on the McConnell-Stevens connection, I didn’t see it.

Three easily exploitable issues became three big-time blown opportunities.

In a wrap-up of Sen. Barack Obama’s successful presidential campaign, Sharon Cohen of the Associated Press described the scene in the middle of the September financial collapse when Obama staffers heard Sen. John McCain utter words he must certainly now regret: “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

Campaign manager David Plouffe and communications director Dan Pfeiffer knew immediately what they had, and the ad folks were at work within an hour on a spot that aired the next day depicting McCain as out of touch.

That’s the difference between winning campaigns and losing ones. Winners have instant “Aha!” moments. Losers never have them at all.

                                                        * * *

One of the bigger losers in Tuesday’s election wasn’t even on the ballot.

Kentucky Democrats underperformed at all levels, while the state’s Republicans defended well in a year when their national counterparts were taking their lumps. Nowhere was that more evident than in state legislative races.

In the federal races, a Democratic win would have been considered an upset. But the Democrats expected to pick up one Senate seat and had an outside chance at another. And they expected to add a handful of seats to their House majority.

Instead, the Senate numbers didn’t change at all. And House Democrats had a net pickup of one.

Since Gov. Steve Beshear’s party was unable to budge the numbers at all in an uncooperative Republican-controlled Senate, he has to be considered one of Tuesday’s losers.

                                                         * * *

Carroll Hubbard, the former U.S. representative who was convicted on several felony counts and sentenced to three years in prison in the 1990s, needs to give up his quest for political redemption. It ain’t gonna happen.

Exit polls showed a substantial majority of voters thought Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is unqualified to be president, while a larger majority felt Sen. Joe Biden is qualified. Instead of helping Sen. John McCain, she proved to be a drag on his campaign. He made a rash choice in the selection of his running mate, and it cost him.

This public recognition that Palin isn’t up to the nation’s top job should give pause to those Republicans who have begun suffering from the delusion that she is the future of their party.

Both multimillionaire Bruce Lunsford and former U.S. Rep. Anne Northup now qualify as three-time losers.

This time, at least, Lunsford got closer than he has in the past, losing to incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell by 6 percentage points. But Lunsford got close in spite of, not because of, the campaign he ran. It left a lot to be desired. I am still stunned that, over the last week of the campaign, the Lunsford camp didn’t air ads about the close ties McConnell has to the recently convicted Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

In a year that approached a perfect storm for Democrats nationwide, Northup never had a chance of regaining her former seat from Rep. John Yarmuth in the most progressive congressional district in the state.

Lunsford’s desire to win an election is evidenced by the millions of his own wealth he committed to the three losing campaigns. So, he may try again. But it’s doubtful he will ever have a better chance than he had against McConnell.

Three losses in three straight years probably ends Northup’s political career.

A majority of Americans voted for change Tuesday, but not a majority of Kentuckians. Voters in Kentucky voted for more of the same. They voted more of the same in the presidential race by backing John McCain. They voted for more of the same in the U.S. House and Senate, and more of the same in the state House and Senate. Sure, a couple of state House seats flipped parties and the Democrats added one vote to its majority. But that still amounts to more of the same.

As a result, Kentuckians will get more of the same from the folks they sent to Washington and Frankfort. In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s ability to obstruct progress may be tempered a bit by increased Democratic majority. But the lack of change in Frankfort suggests continued dysfunction in the General Assembly. Who can be happy about that?

After taking Wednesday morning to go over the results of the election and try to figure out what those results mean, I’ll be posting some thoughts on the outcome between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m Wednesday. I’ll also be monitoring any comments that come in and responding to those comments. If you have a chance to visit the KyKurmudgeon blog during that period, please share your thoughts as well.

If you have voted already, I applaud you. If you haven’t voted already, stop reading blogs and go take advantage of the great privilege you have as an American. Help choose your next president, your U.S. senator, your U.S. representative, your state House and Senate members, your judges and other local officials. The blogs will be here when you return. For now, though, GO VOTE!!!!

Sunday’s column:

FRANKFORT — Lately, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell’s main argument for re-election to a fifth term has gone something like this:

“I have seniority. As minority floor leader, I have a place at the table when the decisions are made and the clout to bring home the bacon. Don’t trade all of that away for a rookie.”

OK, McConnell would never utter “minority” in front of “floor leader.” That would remind him he didn’t achieve his dream (and maybe never will) of becoming “majority” floor leader. But the rest of those words represent his basic pitch to Kentucky voters in recent weeks.

However, even if he survives Democrat Bruce Lunsford’s challenge Tuesday, McConnell may well find his clout has been greatly diminished when he returns to Washington in January. And his presence at the table, if he still has a place there, could be ignored when the serious discussions occur.

This election shapes up as a real downer for Republicans. Even before Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens got convicted on seven felony counts, Democrats were talking about winning a filibuster- and veto-proof majority in the Senate. The conviction of Stevens, a good buddy of McConnell’s, improves that possibility.

Republican prospects look so grim the party’s national committee recently secured a $5 million line of credit to help several embattled Republican incumbents, including McConnell.

If the Democrats succeed in attaining 60 votes (with the help of a couple of independents),  McConnell’s relevance takes a huge hit. Even if the Democrats (aided by those independents) get a majority in the high 50s, they may be able to get most anything they want done by picking up a vote or two from moderate Republicans.

Despite his seniority and his position of leadership, McConnell might not fare as well as a rookie would under these two scenarios, particularly a rookie who helps put the Democrats in that position.

Exhibits A and B for that argument are U.S. Reps. Ben Chandler and John Yarmuth, who both had more influence with their party leaders than normal for freshmen because they flipped Republican seats and helped retake the House for Democrats.

If Lunsford succeeds in doing a Tom Daschle number on McConnell, he can expect Democratic Senate leaders to greet his arrival in Washington like the return of the prodigal son.

McConnell’s argument also rests on the assumption that his fellow Republicans retain him as their leader. But it was on his watch that  Republican fortunes declined so much that he and several of his colleagues are now at risk.

When the head lemming takes the pack over the cliff and into the rough seas Republican senators expect to experience Tuesday, some of the survivors might start thinking about new leadership — understandably so.

Should that happen, McConnell would become one of the more irrelevant members of Congress, a rejected former leader sent to the back benches by members of his own minority party.

Senority? Minority leadership status that earns him a place at the table? Clout to bring home the bacon?

Desperate arguments by an incumbent whose 24 years in Washington have been totally devoted to the accumulation of personal power and who now faces the prospect of seeing some or all of that power slip away even if he wins on Tuesday.