KyKurmudgeon

Sunday’s column:

This and that as the morphing of the state Senate continues:

Frankfort’s worst-kept secret in recent memory produced its expected conclusion when Gov. Steve Beshear picked former Senate Majority Leader Dan Kelly to fill a vacant seat on the 11th Judicial Circuit bench. Funny, isn’t it, how the months of hallway chatter preceding the nominating process proved to be so eerily accurate on this one?

Oh, well, Beshear at least gave the appearance of considering the other two nominees. He let a full weekend go by before naming Kelly to the post, thereby creating another opportunity for Democrats to capture a seat formerly held by a Republican in a special election.

But the Kelly gambit has more potential for exploding in Beshear’s face than the appointment of Republican former Sen. Charlie Borders to the Public Service Commission, which set up the special election won by Democrat Robin Webb.

Although a coveted job with big-time pay, a PSC commissioner essentially serves at the whim of the governor. When Borders’ initial term is up, whoever occupies the governor’s office will decide whether he gets reappointed or gets shown the door.

But appointment to a judicial post invests the lucky recipient with the perks of incumbency when the next election rolls around.

By giving a Republican the opportunity to run a “Keep Judge Kelly on the Bench” campaign in the next election, Beshear upset some members of his own party who thought a Democratic governor should bestow such favors on fellow Democrats. Should they decide to sit out the upcoming 14th District special election, picking up Kelly’s seat would become more problematic even though Democrats’ advantage in voter registration is more than 2 to 1.

All other things being equal, though, the 14th District ought to be receptive to the current Democratic mantra about giving Kentucky’s signature racing industry the expanded gambling options it needs to compete with racino-enhanced purses and breeding incentives that are luring Kentucky trainers and owners to other states.

The 14th isn’t in the heart of horse country, but elements of the racing industry exist there. And it has a significant population of Catholics, who are more accepting of gambling than some other faiths.

                                                         * * *

I grew up in the 14th District, in Washington County. I came of age, slightly ahead of legal age, at a couple of Lebanon nightclubs way back in the day.

But I know the two candidates in the special election — Republican Rep. Jimmy Higdon and Democratic former Rep. Jodie Haydon — only through their legislative careers. Both are good guys. And left to their own devices, I would expect them to run a clean campaign.

Unfortunately, their respective parties and assorted other groups rarely let two decent candidates settle the issue by themselves these days.

                                                         * * *

Then, there were none.

Entering last week, 11 of the 12 states Kentucky’s racing industry competes with offered some form of expanded gambling. On Tuesday, Ohio voters made it 12 for 12.

Not immediately, of course. A Cincinnati casino isn’t expected to open until 2012. But when it does, the one remaining gap in the line of casinos along Kentucky’s northern border will be closed.

And Kentucky tracks, which recently requested 67 fewer racing dates in 2010 than they initially requested for 2009, will find themselves at an even greater competitive disadvantage.

All the more reason for Kentucky lawmakers to take the legislative route to approving racetrack slots rather than a constitutional amendment process that could delay approval by up to two years.

                                                       * * *

“Holiday tree” is too PC by far for the kurmudgeon in me.

But having gone there, Gov. Beshear should have stayed there. Reversing course to “Christmas tree” comes across as a flip-flop.

Sunday’s column:

That didn’t take long.

Prominent members of his party take Senate President David Williams publicly to task for blocking any resolution of the gambling debate, and it suddenly starts raining proposed constitutional amendments sponsored by Senate Republicans. One of them even comes from the obstructionist himself.

Of course, Williams’ amendment wouldn’t resolve the gambling issue. On the contrary, it’s a delaying tactic. If his proposal to ban expanded gambling absent the passage of a constitutional amendment wins legislative and voter approval in 2010, the earliest an amendment authorizing slots at racetracks or any other form of gambling could pass would be 2012.

(Yeah, I know it’s technically possible voters could approve both Williams’ amendment and the one proposed by Sen. Damon Thayer — that actually would authorize racetrack slots — next year. But let’s be real. Kentucky voters aren’t bipolar, which they would have to be to pass both of these measures at one time.)

But delay is secondary to the real motive behind Williams’s proposal — a desire to have an amendment on the ballot that brings conservative voters out in a crucial election that will determine which party controls the Senate during the legislative and congressional redistricting following the 2010 census.

You can say the same for Thayer’s amendment, but he at least wrapped it up in prettier packaging for the racing industry. Still, the horse crowd isn’t rushing to unwrap this present either, and with good reason.

Slots legislation passed by the House in June limits this form of gambling to the grounds of existing racetracks and one track that may be licensed later. Except for that one available license, the bill would have limited slots to locations where gambling already occurs on a near daily basis.

Under Thayer’s proposal one license would be auctioned off to the highest bidder in each of the seven counties with existing tracks. It’s conceivable tracks could be outbid for these licenses. That not only would expand the locations where legalized gambling occurs, it would also put the tracks in competition with other gambling venues in their own counties.

Kentucky needs a geographic expansion of its gambling options — if it involves destination resort casinos, some of which are owned by the tracks. That’s the best way to recapture the $500 million or so Kentuckians now gamble in other states each year. But slots halls competing with tracks within the same county? Uh, no.

In addition, implementation of Thayer’s plan simply takes too long for a signature Kentucky industry that is, as Ellis Park’s Ron Geary told lawmakers in March, “fading away, folks, before our very eyes.”

Assuming Thayer’s  amendment wins approval from state voters in November 2010, local option elections in those seven counties could push the start-up of slots operations well into 2011 or beyond. By then, the circuit that has provided Kentuckians year-round jobs for decades could resemble a half-circuit, if we’re lucky.

Not to mention the fact that the details of Thayer’s plan would be added to an antiquated constitution that hinders governance in a modern society because it already contains, like, 9,000 too many details. If this bombs, the fix can only be made with another amendment.

Kentucky racing being a “red” industry, the state’s horse farms traditionally have provided fertile ground for Republican fund-raising. But despite a wet growing season this year, word is that particular cash crop has dried up a bit because the Republican state Senate killed the slots bill passed by the House during the June special session. Neither of these proposals is apt to get those greenbacks blooming again.

Sunday’s column:

“Due to (Senate President David) Williams’ utter mismanagement, this (gambling) issue now pits Republicans against Republicans, not Republicans against Democrats, as he would have us believe,” Lane’s End Farm general manager Bill Farish wrote in a column published by the Herald-Leader in late September.

“Sadly, Williams seems less concerned about helping our (racing and breeding) industry and more concerned about maintaining control over his Senate fiefdom,” the son of former President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Great Britain added later in the piece.

Last week, Williams drew criticism from Louisville lawyer John David Dyche, author of the recently released Republican Leader: A Political Biography of Senator Mitch McConnell.

Williams’ “hard-line posture and strong-arm tactics on gambling are counterproductive,” Dyche wrote in The Courier-Journal, adding that “Williams has put several GOP legislators in difficult political positions.”

Of the two blows delivered to Williams by fellow Republicans, Dyche’s was perhaps the more telling. Farish, after all, has a stake in the push to keep Kentucky racetracks competitive with their counterparts in states where purses and breeding incentives are supplemented by revenue from alternative gambling. His displeasure with Williams’ obstructionism on this issue could be expected.

Dyche, on the other hand, is one of Kentucky’s better known Republican pundits who tends to reflect mainstream thinking in the party.

So, when he writes about the need for Republicans to “put gambling behind them — preferably by letting the public vote on a constitutional amendment,” you have to believe he’s speaking for a lot of like-minded Republicans. And you have to consider the possibility that pressure from within his own party might force Williams to allow a floor vote on gambling in 2010.

If it does, it likely would take the form of a constitutional amendment, perhaps sponsored by one or more of the Republican senators from horse country who have been put at risk by Williams’ current stance.

The thing is, though, a constitutional amendment on the 2010 ballot is the last thing Democrats should want if they’re truly committed to winning back control of the Senate.

With former state Rep. Robin Webb’s win in a special election for the 18th District seat formerly held by Republican Charlie Borders, Democrats have reduced the Republican Senate majority to 20-17, with one independent. They hope to whittle it down a bit more in another special election later this year, assuming Williams’ oft-voiced prediction that Majority Floor Leader Dan Kelly will get a judicial appointment comes true.

(Republican Rep. Jimmy Higdon has already filed papers with the Registry of Election Finance for a 2010 race in Kelly’s district. Democrat Jodie Haydon, a former state representative, also has filed with the Registry. So, both parties apparently believe Kelly will get a judgeship.)

If Democrats succeed in picking up Kelly’s seat, they would go into the 2010 elections — which will determine who controls the post-census redistricting — down to just 19-18-1 with a few Senate Republicans from horse country at risk because of their anti-gambling votes earlier this year and at least one Republican seat open due to the announced retirement of Sen. Gary Tapp.

Under those circumstances, Democrats would have to be politically brain dead to go along with putting an amendment on the ballot that would draw conservatives to the polls to vote against gambling. Better to just sit back and watch the Republican squabbling on the subject continue.

FRANKFORT — Call it vindication for the surviving spouses of the Comair Flight 5191 crash, mining disasters and other accidents who came to the Capitol in 2007 seeking to right a legal wrong, only to be rudely, insensitively, insultingly rebuffed by the Republican-controlled state Senate.

Call it an affirmation of those survivors’ recognition that Kentucky case law regarding loss of spousal companionship (consortium in legal language) in wrongful death cases turned reason on its head.

Most of all, call it justice at last. Not so much for those survivors who passionately and eloquently argued their case in the Capitol halls more than two years ago. (For instance, only one suit stemming from the Flight 5191 crash remains unsettled.) But justice for Kentucky’s future survivors whose lives are shattered when their wives and husbands die as the result of “a negligent or wrongful act” of a third party.

Since 1970, KRS 411:145 clearly has stated that surviving spouses can seek damages for loss of companionship in these cases. But Kentucky’s prevailing case law has disagreed, nonsensically allowing loss of companionship claims when a spouse is injured and survives but denying such claims when a spouse suffers a wrongful death.

Thursday, the Kentucky Supreme Court corrected this injustice by ruling that the statute means exactly what it says.

“The courts have been exhorted that ‘common sense must not be a stranger in the house of the law,’” Justice Mary Noble wrote in the unanimous opinion. ” … It defies common sense to put a value on such losses while a spouse is lying incapacitated, but to say the loss is worthless after death.”

Later in the opinion, Noble posed this question: “Can it reasonably be said that one whose spouse survives suffers more loss of consortium than one whose spouse dies?”

The answer, of course, is no, a resounding no. If anything, the loss is greater in instances of death.

As the opinion pointed out, the flawed logic of the prevailing case law — which traced its origins back to English common law — could cause people to make sure the victims of their negligent or wrongful acts do not survive “as only by instantly killing them can the (responsible party) be guaranteed to owe no loss of consortium damages. While this logically follows the common law rule, it is obviously absurd.”

Unaddressed in the opinion is an opposite absurdity that is of just as much concern for people who, like me, desperately want the plug pulled as soon as it’s evident they have slipped into a permanent vegetative state. Prior to Thursday, Kentucky law encouraged people to keep vegetative spouses alive if it meant they could collect loss of consortium damages, a prospect I find abhorrent.

While justice in this instance was delivered to Kentuckians through the wise ruling of a unanimous Supreme Court, I firmly believe credit also goes to those surviving spouses — of Flight 5191, of mine disasters, of other accidents — who brought their crusade to the halls of the Capitol back in 2007.

They brought the injustice of prior case law to the attention of the public. They started the conversation about its absurd consequences, a conversation that reached a proper conclusion Thursday in a case unrelated to any of their losses.

They struck me as heroes then. They still do.

Excuse the unexplained absence of columns the past couple of Sundays. I decided to take some time off on the spur of the moment, and failed to post a notice about when I would be back. Well, I’m back now. And here’s Sunday’s column:

Kentucky pays its state legislators the same way many farmers pay field hands — as day laborers.

During General Assembly sessions, lawmakers earn a daily base rate of $186 and change seven days a week. Between sessions, they receive the same amount for each day spent attending committee meetings or other authorized legislative functions.

As The Courier-Journal’s Tom Loftus recently reported, House members also can get paid for up to two “Stumbo Days” a month — days spent handling office work in Frankfort — under a new policy implemented by House Speaker Greg Stumbo.

But paying legislators day wages can lead to abuse.

In a recent story on legislative travel by Herald-Leader staffers John Cheves and Linda J. Johnson, Senate President David Williams acknowledged that some legislators may receive extra pay by lengthening official trips.

“The guidelines say you get paid a per diem on your travel days,” Williams said. “Let’s say there’s an opening reception on a Tuesday. They’ll want to travel in on Monday and get paid for the day before the conference starts and then go to a reception the next day.”

Stumbo and Williams are developing a formal travel policy for lawmakers that presumably will address such abuses. But I’m less concerned with how much the General Assembly spends on travel — which Williams correctly noted can be “broadening” for Kentucky legislators — than I am with the state’s flawed approach to paying lawmakers.

Simply put, the job we ask them to do is too important, too demanding, too time-consuming to be treated as day labor.

This isn’t the slow-paced, agrarian 1890s when the state’s legislative needs easily could be handled in a few winter months every other year. Here in the 21st century, annual sessions, special sessions, interim committee meetings, constituent services and other duties consume at least half the time of any lawmaker worthy of the title.

We need to pay legislators a salary commensurate with the demands we place on them. I would start that conversation at $60,000 a year, minimum, with a reasonable built-in cost-of-living increase.

Since salaried legislators wouldn’t be able to pad their pay by adding extra days to official trips, they might shorten their trips (and reduce the attendant cost of lodging and food) in the future.

In the long run, though, the most important argument for paying decent legislative salaries is that it would help diversify the General Assembly by making the job of legislator more attractive to a wider variety of Kentuckians, including some who may now feel they can’t serve without giving up too much of their private sector earning power.

Adages become adages because they contain kernels of truth. We really do get what we pay for. If we want better lawmakers passing better laws, we need to offer them better salaries.

Paying lawmakers day wages isn’t the only flawed aspect of their compensation package. The rules regarding the expenses they receive during sessions are just plain unfair.

Each lawmaker gets a standard daily expense payment, currently $119.90, in addition to their pay. This, too, covers seven days a week during sessions.

For lawmakers from Western Kentucky and Eastern Kentucky who have to pay for lodging and meals while in Frankfort, that amount or more is justified.

But many lawmakers from the central part of the state commute to the Capitol on a daily basis. They sleep in their own homes, and eat many of their meals there as well. For them, much of that $119.90 amounts to supplemental pay, a windfall that legislators from the far ends of the state don’t get.

Between sessions, legislators have to submit vouchers justifying expenses. That’s more fair. And if it works for most of the year, it can work during sessions just as easily.

Sunday’s column:

I now have had THAT experience. The experience where dealing honestly with government bureaucracy just gets you screwed — royally.

The experience that makes a person think about packing a few necessities — definitely including multiple firearms and a lifetime supply of ammo — and heading for the hills to live a survivalist life because they can’t screw you if they can’t find you.

OK, that thought didn’t last long in my mind because the modest hunting and fishing skills of my youth long since faded away. These days, I wouldn’t last any longer in the wilderness than it would take me to stumble into the first patch of poison ivy.

But back to THAT experience.

As regular readers are aware, Uncle Herald has tightened his belt a bit lately, and not just by reducing the size of the paper. Multiple rounds of buyouts and layoffs have now led to the F word.

Furloughs. One week of unpaid furloughs for all. I bit the bullet the week of Aug. 3, a decision I now regret.

Uncle Herald’s work week runs from Monday through Sunday, and the Fancy Farm Picnic prompted me to work Wednesday through Sunday the week before I went on furlough.

Since unpaid furlough qualifies a person to collect unemployment insurance, I went online at home Aug. 3 and filed my claim, in the process honestly responding to a question by reporting that the last day I worked was Aug. 2.
Filing the claim went smoothly, and I was informed at the end of the process that I could start requesting my check Aug. 16.

A few days later, I received a letter from the Education and Workforce Development Cabinet telling me the amount of benefits I would be eligible to receive.

Requesting my check proved a bit more difficult.

When I went online to do so Aug. 16, the system kept stopping me at a particular point in the process with a message that was incomprehensible to me. Same result when I tried again the next day. So, off to the unemployment office I went.

After registering, I chatted with an acquaintance for the last half-hour of her three-hour wait to be seen. Then, I settled in for my own long wait.

But an hour or so later, a lady walked in and told a man at the registration counter she was having trouble completing a form online. He directed her to one of the computers in the office, and told her he would come help her when she encountered her problem.

I asked if he would do the same for me, and he agreed. When he showed me what I needed to do, I learned that, for unemployment purposes, the work week runs Sunday through Saturday and that, because I had worked Sunday, Aug. 2, I had to report my earnings for that day. I did, and was able to complete the process.

Then, I asked the guy if reporting those earnings would reduce my benefits. He said it would but it would be a “wash” because I had earnings that week.

I tried to explain about Uncle Herald’s Monday-Sunday work week and that my furlough would cost me a full week’s wages. But for whatever reason, I couldn’t get him to understand. He just smiled, handed me a pamphlet, suggested I read it and turned his attention to someone else.

I walked away feeling certain I was screwed. Sure enough, when the check arrived a couple of days later, it was for less than half the amount the earlier letter said I was eligible to receive.

Could the outcome have been different if I had dealt with someone else at the unemployment office? I don’t know.

Maybe there are ways to make the system accommodate the fact that not all work weeks run from Sunday through Saturday. Maybe not.

Could I have appealed to someone higher in the Education and Workforce Development Cabinet? Perhaps.

A columnist at one of the state’s larger media outlets ought to be able to get a return call from the cabinet. But Joe Sixpack might not. Therefore, making the call that might prompt the return call would be taking advantage of my position, which is an ethical no-no for a journalist.

So, I just cashed my small check and learned my lesson from getting screwed for answering a bureaucratic question truthfully. If Uncle Herald decides more furloughs are in our future, you can be darn sure I won’t take mine the week after working a Sunday.

Sunday’s column:

This and that, the Pitino Goes Porno at Porcini Edition:

University of Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino admits having drunken sex in a restaurant (after hours, thankfully for that night’s patrons) with a woman he just met and giving her $3,000 later so she could have an abortion.

After Pitino publicly apologizes, U of L President James Ramsey says, “We hope this closes this chapter; we’re all ready to move on.”

There’s wishful thinking, and then there’s WISHFUL THINKING TO THE NTH DEGREE. Ramsey’s desire to move on falls at the extreme end of the latter category.

With Karen Sypher facing federal extortion charges stemming from her 2003 tabletop tryst with/assault by Pitino (he said/she said), a swift end is unlikely for this soap opera, which my former boss David Holwerk dubbed “Cardinal Sin” in an e-mail last week.

As it plays out in the future, here’s hoping Steve Pence, former lieutenant governor and current Pitino lawyer, comes up with some better explanations than the one about the $3,000 being given to Sypher so she could buy health insurance, not to pay for an abortion.

That’s about as lame as the “noodling out of season” excuse Pence’s ex-running mate, former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, used while trying to spin his way out of the BlackBerry Jam hiring scandal that ultimately resulted in his indictment, which was dismissed after he cut a deal with prosecutors.

Whether Sypher was given the $3,000 to buy health insurance so she could have an abortion or to pay for the abortion itself, the end result remains the same. She got an abortion, courtesy of money Pitino gave her.

                                                        * * *

A background that includes being a onetime Democrat who confesses to having voted for Bill Clinton didn’t hinder Republican convert Trey Grayson when he ran for secretary of state in 2003 and again in 2007.

After all, controversial issues rarely wind up on a secretary of state’s plate. So, an ability to manage the agency honestly and efficiently is more important than any political leanings a candidate for the office might have.

However, now that he wants to succeed U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, Grayson has to polish up his conservative street creds sufficiently to assure the Republican base that he is fully rehabilitated from his youthful errant ways.

Thus, a recent fund-raising appeal contained seven glowing “conservative” references and six derogatory “liberal” references. It also noted Grayson’s opposition to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At first blush, taking a stand on the Sotomayor nomination might seem pointless for a candidate who would have no say in the matter. Besides, by the time Grayson voiced his opposition, her confirmation was a foregone conclusion. So, why risk alienating any voters at all by jumping into that particular melee needlessly?

But the National Rifle Association took a strong interest in the Sotomayor nomination, and it wasn’t in her favor. Thus, by taking a position that coincided with the NRA, Grayson added a bit more polish to those street creds.

Of course, by stressing his conservatism in an appeal to the right, Grayson risks alienating moderate voters who have supported him in the past.

                                                        * * *

Pikeville College scored big when former Gov. Paul Patton agreed to be the institution’s new president, and not just because he will serve two years without pay. Patton’s commitment to the success of the college is reflected by his 30 years of monetary support and service on its board.

But if this new job causes Patton to give up his Council on Postsecondary Education seat, Kentucky will be the loser. Higher education in this state has no better champion than Patton, the architect of reforms that created the CPE more than a decade ago. His presence on its board helps keep everyone’s eye on the ultimate prize.

Wednesday’s column:

Attorney General Jack Conway screwed up, but not because he spiced his Fancy Farm Picnic speech with a few salty words. Conway’s screw-up came when he apologized for the speech.

Conway and Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination in the 2010 U.S. Senate race, both performed well at Fancy Farm. They were the stars of the show. Everyone else played supporting roles.

But at the end of the day, my scorecard had Conway ahead on points, precisely because of his salty language.

You see, the knock on Conway from his critics has always been that he’s just a rich guy with good looks but little substance. Such a condescending characterization implies some level of weakness, some lack of steel on Conway’s part. Mongiardo’s frequent references to “silver spoon” issues in his own speech sought to exploit that image.

By calling Mongiardo out with the “you sure as hell can’t speak the truth” line and by responding to hecklers by describing himself — himself, not anyone else — as “one tough son of a bitch,” Conway added a previously unseen “edge” to his image, an edge that would serve him well in a hard-fought primary and perhaps in an even harder-fought general election.

Some considered his salty words inappropriate because of the setting where they were uttered — a church fund-raising event. Well, I’m a big fan of Fancy Farm (and a huge fan of the food they serve). But with all due respect to the good folks of St. Jerome Parish, when the political speaking commences, it ain’t no church picnic anymore.

Not with raucous (dare I say irreverent?) crowds from both parties shouting down the speakers. And members of this particular congregation aren’t yelling “Amen!” and “Praise the Lord!” I can’t point to a specific instance, but I would be extremely surprised if a few salty words haven’t spiced up some of these confrontations at previous picnics.

Although the crowd annually is admonished (semi-jokingly) to mind its manners, no serious attempt is made to control the heckling. Nor should there be. Fancy Farm wouldn’t be Fancy Farm without audience participation. But as long as the rowdies are allowed to run riot verbally, no one should go all holier than thou if a speaker drops a cuss word or two into the conversation.

So, Conway’s words held no shock value for me. On the contrary, I took them as a display of backbone that elevated his stature in my eyes.

I left the picnic thinking Conway remains vulnerable on “cap and trade” in a coal state, at least until he takes a more definitive position than he has voiced so far. And a Duke Blue Devil may have some explaining to do to the Wildcat fans among Kentucky voters.

But I also left thinking it might be wise of Mongiardo to ease up on the “silver spoon” references in the future, because the Jack Conway on the stage at Fancy Farm seemed perfectly capable of taking that figurative spoon and filing it down into a figurative shiv he could use in a political street fight.

Had Conway chosen to weather the overreaction that followed his speech, his campaign probably would be the better for it today.

Since you can’t take back words once they leave your lips, whatever damage he might suffer from having uttered them was already done. Why compound the problem by backpedaling, which could only be seen by voters and by his opponents as a sign of weakness?

But that was the path Conway chose. He apologized, losing the edge the speech added to his image. And the figurative shiv morphed back into a spoon.

Sunday’s column:

After stubbornly hanging in the game for months over the (at least tacit) objections of prominent teammates, U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning finally signaled the Republican bullpen last week.

It was an acknowledgement of what had been obvious to many state and national observers for some time: He simply didn’t have the stuff to close out a win in a 2010 bid for re-election.

But as he headed to the political showers, the Hall of Fame pitcher added to his reputation for odd behavior by failing to call for a specific reliever.

Earlier this year, in what turned out to be a sign of things to come, Bunning encouraged his friend and protege, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, to form an exploratory committee for the 2010 Senate race. Grayson acted on that advice and raised about twice the money Bunning did in the latest three-month reporting period.

Logic suggested that, having invited Grayson to prepare for a possible race, Bunning would endorse him once he decided to end his own campaign. But logic and Bunning often travel separate paths.

Nonetheless, his exit clearly established Grayson, a two-time statewide winner, as the Republican frontrunner.
Sure, Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul, son of former presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, may know how to stage an Internet money “bomb.” And Louisville’s Cathy Bailey earned an appointment as ambassador to Latvia due to her ability to raise money for former President George W. Bush.

But neither potential candidate has a statewide profile comparable to Grayson’s. And at the moment, Grayson’s only announced opposition is Bill Johnson, a relatively unknown Todd County businessman.

With Bunning’s departure and Grayson’s ascendency from exploratory to definite candidate, the bar has been raised considerably for Democrats.

Against the man widely described as the most vulnerable incumbent in the Senate, Democrats had reason to feel confident with either of their Tier 1 contenders — Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo or Attorney General Jack Conway —  as the party’s nominee. Now, though, each candidate must be evaluated on the basis of how he might fare head-to-head against Grayson, arguably the best candidate Republicans can field.

So far, Conway has proven to be the better fund-raiser. But Mongiardo may be more in line with the conservative political leanings of Kentucky voters.

So, Democrats face a tough choice.

Do they go with the guy most capable of matching Grayson (who is sure to be well-financed) dollar for dollar and ad for ad? Or do they choose the guy who may be able to neutralize Grayson on issues in conservative regions such as Western Kentucky?

Bunning did not leave the field without assigning a little blame for his departure to his teammates. “Over the past year, some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fund-raising,” he said.

Although he didn’t name names, the one most likely to have been in his head when he prepared that portion of the statement was that of former friend and fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Over the last several months, McConnell turned his back on Bunning the same way he shunned former Gov. Ernie Fletcher during the depths of his scandal-plagued administration.

McConnell has a well-earned reputation as the savviest and most influential politician in recent Kentucky history. But at some point you have to wonder: How many “friends” can he sacrifice in pursuit of his own political motives before his aura starts to fade?

Sunday’s column:

Republicans who shopped state Rep. Robin Webb’s story to various media outlets in recent days no doubt hoped the focus would be on the suspension of her law license, her bankruptcy and her bout with post-traumatic stress and depression.

Turns out, though, the full story behind those events from years ago establishes Webb as a sympathetic figure — a victim of domestic violence who went through some serious hell, survived it and emerged a stronger person.

But even though it may backfire on them, the fact that R’s tried to use her misfortunes against her shows how desperately they want to hold onto the 18th District Senate seat vacated by former Sen. Charlie Borders, who accepted an appointment to the Public Service Commission.

If Webb beats Dr. Jack Ditty in the Aug. 25 special election, it could confirm a couple of Republican fears.

First, a Webb win would validate Gov. Steve Beshear’s use of his appointment power to create opportunities for flipping R seats in the Senate.

More appointments could be expected. For instance, Majority Floor Leader Dan Kelly might get the judicial appointment that has been the subject of much Frankfort chatter, opening up a seat in a district where Democrats should be very competitive.

A second fear arises from the racetrack slots legislation killed in Senate committee during the June special session of the General Assembly.

Webb voted for the measure in the House and can expect financial support from the horse industry in her race against Ditty. If a Democrat backed by horse money successfully flips an R seat in Eastern Kentucky, some Republican senators from horse country who opposed racetrack slots could get a bit nervous about the prospect of the industry coming after them the next time they’re on the ballot.

Of course, a Webb victory in the 18th District is far from guaranteed. And if she does lose, some observers expect Beshear to adopt a “what’s the use” attitude about a judgeship for Kelly. I disagree.

Should Kelly run for judge next year, as some expect him to do if he doesn’t get an appointment, that would mean trying to pick up his seat in an election that might feature Secretary of State Trey Grayson at the top of the Republican ballot as a U.S. Senate candidate who can get his party’s voters to the polls.

Better for Beshear and the Democrats to try to pick up Kelly’s seat in a special election because, if they’re successful, the D winner would then run as an incumbent in 2010. And incumbents generally win.

Given recent events, one might assume all of this maneuvering over Senate seats by both parties arises from Beshear’s desire to pass expanded gambling legislation and Republicans’ desire to thwart him.

That is a factor, but there is a much bigger end game for both parties — the legislative and congressional redistricting that comes after the 2010 census.

If the Democrats can pick up a couple of seats in special elections this year, they would only need to flip two more in 2010 to retake the Senate and have total control of redistricting. But if Republicans can retain a majority, no matter how slim, they will be able to control Senate redistricting and force House Democrats to negotiate on congressional districts.

Kentucky may well lose a congressional district after the next census. If that happens, 2nd District Rep. Brett Gutherie could be the odd man out no matter who controls the Senate. He’s the newest member of the delegation. And Warren County, where he lives, is nearly surrounded by the 1st District already.

Of course, if Democrats retake the Senate, they could create a Tennessee border district stretching from Somerset to Hopkinsville, lumping Gutherie with fellow Republican Reps. Ed Whitfield and Hal Rogers. But they wouldn’t be that diabolical, would they?