Some political stories are stranger than others. The story of Thieneman dropping out of the 3rd congressional district falls into the more strange than others category.

Thieneman has claimed to be pressured by people close to McConnell and Northup to drop out of the race. How does he respond? Well, by deciding to drop out of the race. In the process he criticized the Republican establishment for trying to control the election. But he didn't stop there. He inexplicably decided to switch parties and endorse Yarmuth!

Maybe he has a point about the Republican establishment, but we will never know because his credibility on the issue is gone. He gets a little pressure from the Republican party, freaks out, and becomes a Democrat? Why would he join the Democrats when they heavily supported the library tax that he fought hard to defeat? On top of that, why would he decide to run against Yarmuth! and then claim Yarmuth! is doing a good job? To say that his reaction is a bizarre might be an understatement.

Regardless, I am glad he threw this conniption fit. Obviously he never had the temperament to run or hold a political office. Better find out now than before it is too late.

Anne Northup is throwing her hat in the ring again. This time in an attempt to win back her previous seat in congress. Her first step will be to beat Chris Thieneman in the primary.

While I like Thieneman, I don't give him much of a chance. Anne's popularity in the 3rd district among Republicans will be nearly impossible to overcome. I imagine the numbers will break about the same as they did in last year's gubernatorial primary in Louisville.

I must admit that this race is now exciting. Northup is in a good position to win back the seat from ultra-liberal Yarmuth!. This years political setting is much more conducive to Republicans than in 2006, and I expect a very very tight election.

Congressman Ron Lewis is retiring. Unfortunately, he picked the filing day to make it public. His last minute decision effectively closed the nomination process for Republicans. Lewis's former chief of staff Daniel London filed for the race while submitting Lewis's withdrawal paper work.

State Senator Breth Guthrie got wind Lewis's possible retirement and was there to file for the race on Tuesday. At least the Republicans will have a choice in the primary and not just Lewis's hand chosen replacement.

I am sure the late withdrawal was done by design. It served two purposes. First it created a small Republican primary field. Secondly, it kept bigger name Democrats from running for the seat. On the negative side, the Republicans are now behind in fund raising due of the late start.

Personally, I am sad to see Lewis go. He has been consistently the most conservative representative in Kentucky with a life time ACU rating of 92.4. His presence in Washington will be sorely missed. I wish him the best of luck with his future endeavors.

With Lewis out, the 2nd district moves into the toss up category. Even so, I still think Republicans have a good chance of retaining this seat.

First off, the district has moved decidedly more Republican during Lewis's tenure. Secondly, Ron Lewis will be working with the Republican candidate to help them get elected. In addition, I believe McConnell will have coat tails in this years election. Especially in the second district. On top of that, the Democratic presidential candidate will likely perform poorly in the second. Their weak performance will be a drag on whoever the Democratic candidate is.

Patronage is a funny sounding word. The dictionary defines it as the following.

4: (politics) granting favors or giving contracts or making appointments to office in return for political support

Patronage has a long history in Kentucky politics. It has been a main source of corruption that infected state government when Democrats ran everything in Frankfort. With the election of Fletcher four years ago, there was great hope that those dark days were long gone. It appears that hope was misguided.

It hasn't taken the Beshear administration long to bring back those practices. First we had Transportation Secretary Prather taking money road money from Senate Leader Williams district while building an unnecessary stop light in the his neighborhood. Now money is once again being taken from Williams district. In this instance, the money is being directed to the horse park.

Gov. Steve Beshear announced yesterday that he would take nearly $29 million intended for the state park system and use it instead for improvements at the Kentucky Horse Park, which is host of the 2010 World Equestrian Games.

More than half of that money, about $15 million, had been earmarked during the Fletcher administration for improvements at Dale Hollow Lake State Resort Park in the district of Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville.

So let me get this straight. We are taking money from the opposition Senate Leader and giving it to those in the horse industry. Could it just be a coincidence that the horse industry supports casinos and gave huge sums of money to the Beshear campaign? I tend to doubt it. Sounds a lot like patronage to me. Yup. I think it is fair to say that the days of patronage are back in Frankfort.

State of the Union's are boring and therefore not worth live blogging. But I will offer four interesting observations from the SOTUS.

1. Bush sounded like a true across the board conservative. If he had governed like it, he wouldn't have his low approval rating and Republicans would still control both houses of congress
2. There truly is a stark differences between Democrats and Republicans. Bush talked about empowering people while Gov Sebelius's response talked about empowering government. Bush talked about tax cuts and reduced spending. Those issues caused Republicans to applaud while Democrats sat on their hands. These are core principles of conservative idealogy that differentiate the parties. They are winning issues. Ones Republicans can use to win this November.
3. Bush offered a plan he called a "Pell Grant for Kids" that would offer support for low income students to attend private schools. I wonder what Yarmuth! thinks about this bill. Such a bill would help parochial schools in Louisville and allow low income students a chance for a better education. Louisville has a large Catholic population and the Pell Grant for Kids would be a giant help for them. This could be an excellent issue for whomever wins the Republican primary.
4. Best Line of the Speech: "Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

What can be funnier than the traffic light patronage story from yesterday? Listening to Beshear and Prather defend the action.

"Perception is always the problem with these kinds of things," Beshear said Thursday after the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the cabinet's approval process for the turn lights near Prather's Elizabethtown home got started on Dec. 12, the first day Prather and Beshear were on the job.

The directional arrows went up last week despite an agency review that found they were not necessary.

"As far as I know, all this went through the proper channels," Beshear said. "It was approved in the proper ways and Secretary Prather didn't take part in the decision."

Although documents don't prove that Prather directly ordered installation of the light, they clearly show that Prather was kept apprised of the issue.

Perception is the problem? You have got to be kidding me. Prather initiated and pushed through an unnecessary stop light in his neighborhood and the problem is perception? I don't think the problem is one of perception. I think it has more to do with the ethical concerns around an obvious act of self patronage.

Prather's excuse is even better.

Prather acknowledged that the timing of the signal's installation "obviously could have been better."

Prather said the ordeal has taught him that he must be mindful of the weight his recommendations carry.

"I have learned from this and I will be more careful as I move ahead," he said.

Let's read between the lines. He is basically saying that there was nothing wrong with his act of patronage. Only that it could have been better timed. In fact he has learned his lesson and will be more careful with his acts of patronage in the future.

Amazing. They must believe we are nothing more than imbeciles whom can be easily duped. Why else would they peddle this crap? When these guys are done with state government they should take up jobs as clowns. I know I can't stop laughing at them.

I want to give props to Cyberhillbilly for pointing me to a story by Jim Geraghty at NRO. In the piece, Geraghty makes the argument that Republicans should take a pragmatic stance on the global warming issue.

I don't buy into the global warming hype. But that doesn't mean I want Republican candidates fighting an uphill battle, trying to convince the public that it's all a hoax. I like a lot of what Jim Manzi says - get past the argument of whether it's happening, and get into the debate over what to do with it, and put GOP support for innovation up against Democratic carbon taxes. (And throw in some mockery of prominent Democrats' blatant hypocrisy on the issue.)

Rush Limbaugh is the King Leonidas of the conservative movement, but I'm struck by how regularly he jokes about the concept of global warming. A lot of his radio talk show brethren are in the same boat, saying day after day, "hey, cold weather today. So much for global warming."

The problem is, they're only preaching skepticism to the converted. The independents and the centrists and the soccer moms and everybody whose vote is needed in the

general election is already convinced that it's happening. Whenever there's a big storm or unusual weather, they buy into it. If you put the finest skeptical scientists and researchers from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Enterprise Institute into a room with a couple hundred Americans, and let them talk until they're blue in the face, I'm not sure how much you would move the dials.

In an era where Wal-Mart puts enormous efforts into making the case that it is green, that British Petroleum runs ads about how they're developing alternative fuels, General Electric touts its eco-magination... All of these companies know where public opinion is, and where its customers are. They're all moving as fast as they can, and applying tremendous resources to prove, "we're not part of the problem, we're part of the solution."

Geraghty makes a lot sense with his column. Why should conservatives deny man made global climate change when many centrists believe it exists? Why not just accept it and change the debate towards free market solutions. It seems to make sense.

But what would be the repercussions of such a pragmatic move? It means that conservatives would have ceded huge ground to the environmental socialists. And make no mistake about it. The harbingers of environmental disaster are socialists who want to see the end of capitalism. We would be agreeing to the premise that free market capitalism is destroying our environment.

If that train of thought succeeds then the socialists will have tremendous leverage against capitalism. They will be to logically argue against the need for market solutions. They will be able to claim that market solutions will only exacerbate the problem. How can we trust the greedy capitalists since they are the ones who got us in this mess to begin with?

If conservatives agree to condemn capitalism as destroyers of the environment, they will not be left with a rationale justification for market solutions.

When Roe v Wade was decided a plurality of people then and now think it is a good law. Polls consistently show that a majority support the pro-choice position. Should social conservatives concede the point that it isn't a human life and work to limit the number of abortions? Or should they continue to fight the principled fight? Conservatives have done the latter and it hasn't hurt them at the ballot box.

In my mind the battle over the man made climate change hoax is just as important a battle for fiscal conservatives as abortion is for social conservatives. Like abortion, conservatives must make the principled stance. Besides, I don't believe a principled stand will be as detrimental to conservative election opportunities as Geraghty fears. It just isn't important enough of an issue for most voters.

If Republicans feel the need to embrace green technologies it should be done because it is in the best interest of national security to achieve energy independence. Not because we believe in the man made global warming hoax. Doing otherwise would needlessly undermine the principles of free markets.

There is a brief story in yesterday's Courier about Heather Ryan. A resident of Western Kentucky who claims to be have been fired by McConnell because she confronted the senator. The anti-Mitch forces have been in a frenzy over this story for the last couple of days.

Heather Ryan said she waited outside her workplace -- Maiden Alley Cinema -- with her 12-year-old daughter last week to ask McConnell about the Iraq war and videotape his answer.

Ryan said that when McConnell came out he ignored the questions.

She sent an e-mail to friends and used expletives to describe her efforts to confront McConnell at the Paducah cinema.

Let me see if I get this straight. Heather stalks a patron of the facility which employs her. Has her daughter blind side him as he is leaving with wacky questions about Iraq. Afterwards, she sends out a nasty email message about the incident.

Hmmm, If I were the owner I would have fired her without a question. Think of it this way. If you owned a business and one of your employees did something similar to an important client what would you do? Welcome the unacceptable behavior? No you would get rid of the problem.

Whether Heather likes it or not, she has chosen to be employed in the service industry. She choose to act in a way that reflects negatively upon the organization that employs her. Her termination should have been expected. She should take personal responsibility for her actions and live with the consequences rather than blaming others.

This is a stupid story that shouldn't even be in the Courier. But we all know that the Courier can't pass on an opportunity for a quick smear on McConnell. The left must be getting desperate if they have to stoop to such feeble street theater in hopes of unseating McConnell in November.

The Beshear administration is a gift to bloggers that just keeps giving and giving. Every day seems to create a new story that is more surreal than the previous. Today we are taken back to the good old days of political patronage.

The turn lights near the Elizabethtown home of the secretary, Joseph W. Prather, sped through the cabinet's approval process, which got rolling on Dec. 12 -- the first day Prather and Beshear were on the job, according to records obtained through the Kentucky Open Records Act. The directional arrows were up and shining by last week despite an internal review that said traffic data from the intersection didn't show the need for turn signals.

I just can't stop laughing about this story. Here we have the Transportation Cabinet killing needed construction in the Republican Leader's district while installing an unnecessary light in his personal neighborhood. The hypocrisy is delicious and provides an insightful view into the nature of this administration.

I want to give props to the Herald Leader for exposing this administration's chicaneries. They may not follow up on the stories, but at least they are bringing them to life. That is more than can be said for the Courier Journal.

January 29th is the unofficial start of this year's General Assembly. What? Didn't they already start the session? What makes the 29th so special? The 29th starts the legislative season because January 28th is the deadline to file for political office. Does anyone else find it a bit peculiar that the filing deadline falls right at the beginning of the General Assembly? A point in time where no serious legislation has been put forward.

Ever since I started following politics, I thought the early filing date was a stupid idea. It allows legislators a chance to avoid difficult positions until after an opponent files. How do you recruit a candidate to challenge an incumbent legislator when you don't have any idea how the legislator is going to vote on the important issues of the day? Deciding to challenge an incumbent becomes at best a crap shoot. The uncertainty of the situation leads to weaker candidates.

All you have to do is watch what Beshear's actions to know the truth of this statement.

Three hours later (After the deadline to file), Gov. Steve Beshear will take hold of the bully pulpit to present on statewide TV the details of his two-year state budget proposal -- the first of several road maps to lead Kentucky through what Beshear calls a "budget crisis."

In the meantime, important proposals on such topics as casino gambling, cigarette taxes and the state employee pension system wait in the wings.

All are being held back until Jan. 29 or later. Beshear has even bumped back radio show interviews with WLAP-630 and WVLK-590 in Lexington until after the magic day.

Beshear says his aides are still trying to nail down details of the casino plan and the retirement system reform and that his time is consumed by crafting a budget proposal.

The delay in the unveiling of those policies is practical -- not a political stalling tactic to make it past the candidate filing deadline, Beshear insists.

"It's not geared to the filing deadline, it's simply geared to the fact that right now we're in the middle of putting this budget together," he said. "That's our top priority, obviously, because I've got to do that by the 29th and we're working on these other things at the same time. It's just a product of the time that we've got."

Contrary to what Beshear claims, there is no way all of the political activity scheduled for 29th is coincidental. The maneuvering after the deadline allows legislators a chance to size up their competition and cast votes to maximize their chances of being reelected.

Senate Bill 3 introduced by Sen David Williams and supported by Trey Greyson would alter the process.

On Friday, Williams filed a bill that would move the candidate filing deadline to the last Tuesday in April and the primary election, now held in May, to the first Tuesday after the third Monday in August.

I think the idea is right, but I am not sure I like the dates. Moving the filing date to April is a good idea. It allows prospective challenger a chance to digest what happened during the legislative session before they decide to run against an incumbent legislator.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of the primary being in late August. The date is too late in the election cycle and doesn't give the candidates enough time to campaign directly against each other. I would prefer to move the primary to either June or July. The mid-summer date would allow candidates 2 - 3 months to campaign for the primary and 4 - 5 months for the general.

SB 3 is a change to our election process that is long overdue. I hope it makes its way through both houses and is signed into law.

It is pathetically sad to see how easily the new administration has fallen into the old ways of doing business. The latest simpleton ploy by the these guys is to hold a Senate election during the General Assembly. The race allows Beshear to go out and campaign for his fellow Democrat with promises of money for the people of the 30th if they elect a Democrat.

Slipping back into full campaign mode, Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear canvassed the 30th Senate District this week with his party's special election candidate in tow to urge local officials to back "a person I trust."

His message was clear: Democratic candidate Scott Alexander would have his ear if the counties that make up the district -- Bell, Harlan, Perry and Leslie -- needed state money for projects.

Of course this childish attempt at a power play has riled up Senate president David Williams.

That approach has pricked a nerve with Republican Senate President David Williams, who considered Beshear's tactics and message nothing short of "intimidation" or bribery -- especially coming in the middle of a General Assembly session.

He has every right to be pissed off by the Governor's actions. Beshear's actions are nothing less than a transparent attempt to buy the votes in the 30th. I didn't have to be this way. This administration had every opportunity to set the election before the general assembly. Instead of doing the right thing they choose to play partisan politics with Mongianardo's old seat.

This from an administration that promised a new tone in Frankfort. It is turning out that the song being played is really the tune used by the Democratic party boss machinery from years ago. One the doesn't resemble the promise of a bi-partisanship they pledged last year.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes Kentuckians to rue the day they elected Beshear and Company. At the rate these clowns are going it might take less than a year.

It is official. Fred Thompson is dropping out of the race for president. I must admit that this is a bit of a cheerless moment for me. I no longer have a much interest in the nominating process this year. As I have stated before, I don't see much difference between the remaining Republican candidates. So I will sit back and watch with great indifference to see who my fellow Republicans nominate to take on Hillary.

My hope moving forward is two fold. First that the Republicans nominate someone who can beat Hillary. Secondly, that whoever the nominee is doesn't do much to damage the conservative cause during their term in office.

I know that seems a bit depressing, but one must face reality to move forward. The reality is we lost, but I believe there is a silver lining in the 2008 election cycle. A road map has emerged for regaining control of our party.

First it will take a candidate who understands conservative principles and can articulate them clearly. But as Thompson proved, that is not enough to win. The candidate of tomorrow must also be able to shine like a star on American Idol. Think of it this way. We need a candidate who has the depth of Thompson but the flair of Obama.

Those who believe in conservative principles have the next four to eight years to find such a candidate. One such possibility might be Bobby Jindal, the new Governor of Louisiana. Fortunately we have time to find one. In the mean time let's get out there and work to defeat Hillary.

State Universities are trying their damnedest to erase the second amendment from our Constitution. They believe in nothing less than a total ban on guns. Don't believe me? Let's look at their recent quotes about a law that would allow people to retain firearms inside their cars while on campus.

Let's start the montage off with UK president Lee Todd.

We think it's one of those situations where it's best to leave the decision up to the colleges," UK President Lee Todd said.

UK bans firearms and "that's obviously the way we'd like to continue," he said.

Next up, the University of Louisville spokesman.

John Drees, a University of Louisville spokesman said officials there also oppose the bill.

"Safety is our primary concern," he said. "We have always had a standing policy against having firearms on campus. We are comfortable with that policy."

Where does Centre College Stand?

"This is a really bad idea," said Centre College President John Roush, whose private college in Danville bans firearms. "It would run counter to our tradition and the principles on which we operate our community."

Bellarmine?

"Apart from law enforcement and our security, we are against having guns anywhere on campus," said Bellarmine University President Joseph McGowan. "We are in favor of our students shooting holes in bad ideas but with their minds and words."

All of them are saying the same thing. The second amendment is not welcome in their liberal fiefdoms. Normally, I would ignore their stupidity as liberal drivel, but they are finding allies with Democrats in Frankfort. Starting with Rep Kathy Stein who heads the committee where the HB 114 resides.

Rep. Kathy Stein, a Lexington Democrat who heads the committee, said HB 114 is "way too broad" and she doesn't plan to call it for a committee hearing or vote.

But it doesn't stop there. The Democratic speaker is against it as well.

But House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green said he won't remove the bill from Stein's committee -- where it was sent by House leadership -- and doesn't support it.

The Democratic leaderhip wants this bill dead. Why else would they assign it to a committee which is headed by an anti-gun legislator? This is a deliberate attempt by the Democratic leadership in the house to supress the second amendment. It is impossible to support the second amendment as Richards suggests and then deny its right. Especially in a case where we are talking about a person's car.

The naked liberalism on display is why we can't trust Democrats with leadership in this state. It is time both the House leaders and the universities learn that the second amdenment is just as inviolate as the first amendment. Especially the Universities since they cower behind the first amendment rights as they espouse their extreme liberal dogma. The Republicans need to join Rep Damron and force a vote on the issue. It is time to find out where the Kentucky Democrats really stand with regards to the second amendment.

Four questions from the South Carolina Primary.

1) What happened to Fred Thompson?

The short answer is he finished third. His campaign for the presidency save some miracle is finished.

2) How is it that the most complete conservative in the race lost?

I have been pondering this for a while and believe to have the answer. Thompson's campaign had too much Lincoln and not enough American Idol. Look at Thompson's campaign. He spent all of his time talking about the issues. He talked about conservative principles. Yet he was unable to do better than third in the most conservative state. The bottom line is he didn't have the glitz and sparkle of a candidate like Obama.

Unfortunately, our society has become the entertainment generation. Unless people can be entertained then the content of the message is ignored. In fact if you don't have "star power" then you are lazy and don't want the job. The foil for Thompson in this year's presidential election is Obama. Listen to any of his speeches. He is full of glitz and glamor while saying absolutely nothing of substance. Yet he still has a legitimate shot of winning the Democratic primary.

3) Now that Thompson is done, who is your second choice?

I don't have one. To be honest, I don't see much difference between the remaining candidates. They all have aspects of their campaign which violates conservative principles. Giuliani is a social liberal. Romney sees government as a means to solve problems. Huckabee is a fiscal liberal. McCain goes off the reservation frequently, but it is different every time. The latest is his pro Eco-Socialism stance. For some strange reason, he has apparently bought into the man made global warming hoax.

So from my stand point they all have their weaknesses. How do you go about picking your liberal poison? At the end of the day it is still poison.

4) What does this mean for conservatism?

It doesn't mean anything. Conservatism is not a movement. It is a timeless set of principles that provide guidance on public policy. They are like the law of the farm. If you want to harvest a crop you have to plan seeds in the spring and tend to it over the summer before it can be harvested in the fall. There are no shortcuts to the process. It is a natural law. Conservatism are tried and true laws of public policy. Laws that have been proven thought the history of the world. There is no shortcut to the process.

The Republican party is supposedly built around people who hold these principles dear. The problem is those leading our party aren't practicing those principles. None of the remaining candidates will change that fact. It is the same problem that caused our defeat in 2006. Republicans had the reigns of power but our elected officials abandoned many of the principles that brought us to power. It cost us at the ballot box. We will get more of the same with any of the candidates that remain.

I have a sinking feeling that if we win this election we will continue to lose house and senate seats over the next four to eight years. At the same time I can't say I want Republicans lose. The disaster of a Democratic presidency is not worth any gains that would be made in the house and senate.

My hope for this year is that we Republicans can win the presidency and limp along with minimal damage for the next four to eight years. Hopefully in that time the Republican party can discover the next American Idol who both understands and lives conservative principles.

This is hysterical. The day after Obama calls Bill Clinton a liar we are treated to stories that lying is normal. Classic cover fire from the main stream media.

07:37:03 PM Polls are closing, so we get to see if Fred's momentum was real.

08:02:50 PM 5% of SC is in and it isn't looking good for Fred. He is in 4th and a good deal off the lead. McCain has the early lead so these aren't Fred areas. We will have to see what happens when the strong conservative areas report.

08:09:55 PM 12% in and Thompson has moved into third. Unfortunately, he is way behind the leaders.

08:31:43 PM 26% in and it is looking like McCain and Huckabee are going to finish in the top 2. Well ahead of Thompson and Romney who are fighting for third.

08:38:56 PM 38% in and the battle between Huck and McCain is interesting. McCain has a lead but the Huck areas haven't come in yet. Thompson is slowly pulling away from Romney and will probably finish third.

08:58:25 PM 55% of the vote has reported and McCain still has a 5% lead, but it still hasn't been called. Interesting.

09:00:24 PM 61% in an McCain has 4% lead. The big Huck areas must not have reported yet since the race hasn't been called.

09:18:02 PM 75% in and McCain still has a large lead on Huckabee. Looks like McCain is going to win. Huckabee in a close second. Thompson is going to finish 3rd but he is almost 20 points off first place. I think Fred should stay in the race thru Super Tuesday, but I think his chances are pretty much gone. Republicans are not going to nominate a conservative this year. What does that mean for conservatism going forward?

09:28:36 PM 83% of the vote in South Carolina has reported and McCain has ben declared the winner. Huckabee is going to finish a close second. Thompson and Romney a distant 3rd and 4th respectively. I am going to sign off here and have a few adult beverages.

09:30:35 PM I'll write more on the SC results tomorrow.

Democratic Representative Bob Damron form Nicholsville has put forth a common sense gun law change for this session. One that would allow people to keep guns in their cars while on university property.

First off, I didn't know it was illegal to have a gun in your car while on a campus. Second, it is a bad law. The rest of the state allows peaceful journey with a gun in the glove compartment. Why shouldn't a university? What are you supposed to do when you get to the university? Throw it out the window? Leave it at home? What if you live in a high crime neighborhood? If you come home late at night are you supposed to be defenseless just because you were down at the university working on a report?

But still the university's strongly oppose the law.

Carol Jordan, director of UK's Center for Research on Violence Against Women and a leader on campus safety issues, said she continues to support UK's policy of banning firearms for the "protection and safety of the UK campus."

"From the point of view of campus safety, I am extremely pleased with the policy we have in place," Jordan said.

Safety? What safety? What the universities have is an illusion of safety. Virginia Tech had the same gun ban, but it didn't help the 32 students who were slain by Seung-Hui Cho in 2007. Criminals aren't going to follow the law and the police is only good for cleaning up afterwards.

Of course my favorite argument from the opposition comes from UK professor Tagavi.

Kaveh Tagavi, a UK professor and president of the Senate Council, a campus policy group for faculty, administrators and students, said the authority to bear firearms on campus should be reserved for the campus police.

Otherwise, the threat of someone bearing a concealed weapon could destroy trust between faculty and students, Tagavi said.

"Under the present policy, I don't have a weapon, and neither do my students," Tagavi said.

He said he is particularly concerned about what could happen after an intense class discussion about a controversial topic.

"If a student is upset and the car might just be two minutes from the classroom," a real threat to safety could exist, he said. Tagavi said he was speaking for himself and not for the Senate Council, which has not addressed the issue.

Give me a break. I want some one to name a school shooting that took place right after an argument in class. Every shooting I can recall were all planned days in advanced by the gunman. This is the same stupid argument people made against the concealed carry permit law. They claimed that gun battles would erupt in the street. Guess what? Their predictions haven't come to pass on that one and they won't come to pass on this law either.

I always found it amusing that universities are the biggest defenders of the first amendment. In fact they hide behind it as they teach their liberal dogma. Yet they continually excoriate the second amendment. They want to protect all of our basic rights except the right to self defense.

It makes me wonder if they don't want to ban guns on campus to encourage big massacres. It seems like every time a shooting occurs professors are at fore front calling for greater gun control. I find it difficult to believe that they would want gun slayings on their campus. But there refusal to allow people to defend themselves makes you wonder. Personally, I don't think that is the case. I imagine that the campus shootings are just another unintended consequence of a misguided liberal dream world.

It is primary day in South Carolina. Go Fred Go! I might try to live blog the results tonight depending on if I am somewhere that is showing the results.

In 2006, Louisville elected Yarmuth! to Congress and what did they get in return? Nothing. Yarmuth! has been unable to acquire any additional funds for the faltering bridge project. A project that is imensely important for Louisville's growth.

In 2007, Louisville played a huge part in electing Beshear. What are they going to get in return? I bet you can guess. Yup. Nothing. Beshear's administration has decided they are no longer going to fund the bridge project.

Facing tough times for Kentucky’s road fund, Transportation Secretary Joe Prather said today he favors alternative ways of paying for the Ohio River Bridges Project and other large road and bridge ventures.

I think it is funny that Louisville has voted Democratic in the last two elections and now the bridge project is receiving zero funding. That doesn't seem like a very good return on investment.

Interestingly enough, it appears that Louisville might get a chance for redemption this year. Leading Republican Congressional candidate, Erwin Roberts, has been called up by his Army Reserve unit and will not be able to seek election. On Thursday, Roberts officially withdrew from the race.

These unexpected developments has opened the door for a Northup comeback. She is seriously contemplating jumping into the race which would set up a potential rematch with Yarmuth!.

Early polling shows that a race between Yamuth! and Northup would be as tight as it was two years ago. I am sure the prospects does not make team Yarmuth! all that happy.

I would love to see Norhtup retake her seat. She is a wonderful person and a hard worker. In addition her moderate politics are a perfect fit for Louisville. I wish her the best of luck.

Today's moment of cronyism brought to you by the Beshear administration.

The state agency that doles out money to local governments has hired Jennifer Chandler, the wife of Democratic U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, and added 16 other appointed officials Wednesday, including Bell County's Democratic Party chairman.

The state Personnel Board has voted not to investigate the discrepancies of Treasurer's office during Jonathan Miller's tenure.

The state Personnel Board has decided not to investigate two referrals from former Personnel Secretary Brian Crall concerning two hiring-related moves in the office of former state Treasurer Jonathan Miller.

"This effectively is the final act on these matters, unless other referrals are brought to the board's attention," the board's general counsel, Andy Crocker, said Wednesday.

Crocker said the board voted 4-to-1 Friday on each referral not to investigate, with one abstention in each vote.

This is an absolutely bizarre ruling. I have no idea how they couldn't investigate the salary increase of Rebecca Parker in June of 2004.

Rebecca Brooke Parker in June 2004 should never have been granted because there was no written justification to support them. The two increases totaled $566.92 a month.....

...... An attorney for the Personnel Cabinet in late December said Miller's office wrongly processed the raises for Parker, but the mistakes could be fixed by being resubmitted as a bonus known to state employees as an ACE, or Award for Continuing Excellence.

I guess simple math is beyond the capabilities of the members on the board. Let me see if I can help them. First, Brooke's raise was $566.92 a month. Let's take a second and calculate how much that is a year. How many months are in a year? 12. Ok to calculate her salary for a year we need to multiple her monthly increase by the number of months in a year.

  
	   566.92
	x      12
	-----------
	  1133.84
          5669.2
	-----------
	  6803.04

The product of 566.92 times 12 is 6803.04. That means her salary was increased $6,803.04 per year. Here is where the problem begins and why there should have been an investigation. The guidelines for the ACE award state that a raise can not be more than 10% of the mid point of the person's pay grade. We can use simple algebra to determine what the mid point of the person's pay grade must be to substantiate this type of raise. The simple equation below can be used to determine the value. In this case x equals the mid point salary.

 10%     $6,803.04
----  =  ---------	
100%     $ x 

Now here is where the math gets a bit more difficult, but anyone with a basic understanding of algebra should be able to keep up with it. The first thing we are going to do is multiple both sides by x.

 x * 10%     6,803.04
--------  =  --------	
  100%           1 

Now we can multiple both sides by 100%

 x * 10%     6,803.04 * 100%
--------  =  ---------------	
    1              1 

Simplifying, we get the following.

x * 10% = 680,304%

We can now divide both sides by 10%

x = 68,030.4

That means that the mid point of her pay grade must be equal to or greater than $68,030.40 for her raise to be qualified as an ACE award. The only pay grade's that have a mid point that high are those of grade 18 or higher. There are only a handful of state employees that work in that pay grade range. She wasn't one of them. Therefore the size of the ACE award was ILLEGAL. And there is no way she could have gotten 2 ACE awards because you can only receive one every two years.

The ruling was a complete embarrassment. I think the members of the board should go back to school and take a few remedial math courses.

The liberals in this country always tell us that the conservatives are the party of hate. We conservatives do nothing but practice the politics of hate! As college football commentator Lee Corso would so aptly say "Not so fast my friend!"

Arthur Brooks a professor at the Syracuse University finds statistical proof that the left in this country is the true party of hate. Please take a moment today and read his commentary in the Wall Street Journal. It is illuminating to say the least.

Beshear's administration decided to flex its muscles today by canceling a project in Senate President David Williams home county.

The Beshear administration has canceled a controversial $11 million expansion of a road project in the home county of Senate President David Williams.

The expansion had been authorized by a “change order” approved during the final days of former Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s administration.

But Gov. Steve Beshear’s state highway engineer, O. Gilbert Newman, directed in a memo today that the work authorized by the change order “not be done.”

I must say that this move is gutsy. I am just trying to figure out what they were hoping to gain? Are they trying to scare David Williams into falling into step with their agenda? Are they trying to fire a shot across his bow to tell them they are in charge? Is it a return to the old days where retribution against Republicans was common?

Personally, I think it is a combination of the three. Beshear believes it is the good old days and he can rule with impunity and will punish those who get out of step. The funny thing is I think Williams is going to teach him a lesson in humility before the end of the session.

I imagine at some point Beshear is going to want to pass some important piece of legislation and it is going to die in the Senate. At that point he will learn that sticking your thumb in the eye of the opposition leader is a bad idea.

I wonder if this is what Beshear meant when he spent all of that time at his inauguration talking about "bipartisanship". What better way to show bipartisanship than to cancel a project in the home of the opposition's leader? This administration has become a joke much faster than I could have predicted.

Yesterday, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released a study that calls for a 40 cent increase in the gas tax to help fund our "decaying infrastructure"

A special commission is urging the government to raise federal gasoline taxes by as much as 40 cents per gallon over five years as part of a sweeping overhaul designed to ease traffic congestion and repair the nation's decaying bridges and roads.

Last year's Minneapolis bridge collapse killed 13 and spotlighted the nation's decaying infrastructure.

The two-year study being released Tuesday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the first to recommend broad changes after the devastating bridge collapse in Minnesota last August, warns that urgent action is needed to avoid future disasters.

The commission is using the tragedy in Minnesota as a spring board to raise taxes. They want us to believe that the bridge's failure was due to inadequate funding necessary to preserve our road systems. The only way we can avoid such a disaster in the future is to increase the amount we spend on road maintenance. The 40 cent gas tax would be a necessary sacrifice to improve our roads.

On the surface, the proposal sounds reasonable. A gas tax is a tax on people who are using the road system. Why not have those who use the road system pay for its maintenance?

First off, the bridge collapse they reference was not a failure of maintenance. Instead it was a design flaw in the construction.

Federal investigators have identified a design flaw as the cause of last year's Interstate 35W Minneapolis bridge collapse that killed 13 people, a congressional official said Tuesday.

Personally, I find it despicable that they would misrepresent the tragedy in Minnesota to promote a tax increase. Such lies lead me to disbelieve the veracity of the report. But let's assume our infrastructure is crumbling. The need for the tax increase is unnecessary.

If the nation's infrastructure is in as bad of shape as the report claims, then we have a responsibility to fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure. A gas tax is not the answer. It seems to me there is a much easier way to raise the revenue. We could end congressional ear marks (personal slush funds for members of congress) and use the money saved to "revitalize" our road system.

If our needs are so great, I am sure our representatives would be more than happy to give up their slush funds to pay for such a worthy cause. They should be called upon to sacrifice before the rest of us tax payers.

Councilman Doug Hawkins has filed as the Republican challenger for the 37th District Senate seat. A seat currently occupied by Democrat Perry Clark.

If you don't remember, this is the seat that the Democrats stole back in 2004. Republican Dana Seum Stephenson won the election at the ballot box. But in a post elecition legal challenge by the Democrats, the courts unconstitutionally disqualified Stephenson. Clark won the special election to fill the vacant seat.

Hawkins has proven to be one of the few brights spots in the Metro Council. I wish him luck in winning the back the pilfered seat for the Republicans.

Remember a week ago when Beshear illegally fired 4 top level employees at the PCS? Well guess what? Three of them have been rehired and the fourth was "never fired".

Three Public Service Commission employees fired by Gov. Steve Beshear's administration will be offered their jobs back, a state official said Monday.

The reversal comes after a meeting between Mark David Goss, the PSC chairman, and Robert D. Vance, secretary of the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, said Mark York, a cabinet spokesman.

York would not say what caused the change.

 

"They discussed the situation, looked at some possibilities about doing some things and reached the decision," York said.

The three -- David Samford, general counsel; Phil Cave, director of the Division of Financial Analysis; and Martin Hall, legislative liaison -- were told they were being dismissed on Jan. 4.

The PSC staff was previously told that Executive Director Beth O'Donnell also was being dismissed, and that deputy director Bob Amato was assuming her duties.

York said yesterday that O'Donnell never received a termination letter, and was not affected by the reversal.

This is hysterical. The "most ethical administration ever" has been caught illegally firing employees of the PCS and the PCS's chairman called them on it. The arrogance of this administration apparently knows no bounds. They believe they can do as they will and if anyone calls them on it they can just say oops and get away it.

Unfortunately the arrogance is well founded. The lack of media attention to this administrations indiscretions provides them with all of the cover they need.

Case in point. This story about the PCS. I doubt it will make it onto the front pages of any major news outlet in this state. Without media coverage, this administration will be able to get away with whatever they want. Until an alternate media garners a larger market share in the state, the citizens of the commonwealth will be subject to the whims of the Democrats.

UPDATE: I want to give props to the Lexington Herald for running the story. The question now is will we get any follow up on the story? We didn't on the Miller story so I tend to doubt it in this case. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

As we head into the new year, Senator McConnel's campaign is in full swing. His campaign has recently released a number of targeted ads throughout the state. Each carrying a custom message to each major television market in the state. Such a personalized message is extremely powerful tool and demonstrates to opponents what they will be facing this fall. It shows the organizational and political skill not to mention the money that will be necessary for anyone wanting to compete against McConnell this fall.

Speaking of opponents, McConnell's team has released recent polling information showing him with double digit leads over all of his potential rivals.

What amazes me is McConnell has a 15 point lead over a possible Lunsford candidacy. Especially since Lunsford spent millions on the gubernatorial primary just last year.

Not only does he enjoy large leads, he has an approval rating around 61%. Way up from his numbers a few months ago. Making him a lot less vulnerable than Democrats were predicting last year. Time is running out for potential challengers to jump in the race. With these latest numbers, I am guessing all will pass at the "opportunity".

Fred Thompson has been making up ground in South Carolina over the last couple days. If he can maintain the momentum throughout the week he has the chance to challenge McCain for 1st place in South Carolina.

South Carolina is playing out as the key battle ground for the soul of the Republican party. While McCain, the front runner, has a history of conservative voting, he has never been a champion of conservative principles. And he has had no trouble abandoning them whenever he could gain favorable press.

Thompson is the only candidate in the Republican primary that has a history of not only supporting conservative principles but championing them. I'll be watching the numbers closely this week to see if Thompson can get back in this race. If not, the conservatism may find itself on the back burner for the next 4 to 8 years.

It appears that momentum is gathering for an increase in the state cigarette tax. A number of prominent health groups in Kentucky are joined the chorus calling for the increase.

A broad group of health advocates banding together to work for increased coverage of the nearly 600,000 Kentuckians without health insurance is joining the growing chorus for a higher tobacco tax.

The group, known as Kentucky Voices for Health, is pushing for a higher cigarette tax to reduce smoking, particularly among youth and pregnant women, with some of the revenue used to improve the health of Kentuckians.

With Democratic leaders in the house giving the idea a serious look, I think it is very possible that the tax could make its way through the state house.

The state's two leading Democratic lawmakers --House Speaker Jody Richards of Bowling Green and Senate Minority Leader Ed Worley of Richmond -- said last week that the current state legislature should consider raising the cigarette tax than cutting education funding in the state’s next two-year budget. They stopped short of saying they will vote for any tax increase.

The question I have is what should David Williams in the Senate do if it passes the House? Should he shoot the bill down in the Senate and take heat for it? Or should he send it on to Beshear who claims he will veto any new tax increase and let him take the heat?

If Williams sends the tax increase to the governor, it raises an opportunity to create a split between Democratic factions. A battle could easily erupt between Democratic leaders in the house and the Democratic Governor. Putting a great deal of stress on their unity. And if Beshear signs it he would be under the gun for breaking his campaign promise of no new taxes.

While I admit it would be fun to pass the heat to Beshear and cause a split in the Democratic caucus. I don't trust Beshear to keep his word. Williams should do the principled thing and kill any new tax that makes it way to the Senate.

Ever since Beshear has taken office he has been bitching and moaning about the state of finances in Kentucky. Now he is warning of even more dire circumstances than he originally thought.

The grim budget outlook described by Gov. Steve Beshear in recent weeks is likely to get even worse.

The state Budget Office reported yesterday that General Fund revenue in December was 5.9 percent below that in December 2006.

Through the first six months of the current fiscal year, revenues have declined 0.4 per- cent from the first six months of last year.

"It's just another indication of the severe situation that we're facing," Beshear said yesterday during a talk to a legislative workshop for reporters and editors.

Of course I think this is nothing short of FUD, fear, uncertainty, doubt. I am not saying the budget isn't short, but I don't think it is in the dire circumstances that Beshear is saying.

This ruse is nothing more than a political stunt to get people behind his casinos plan. It is a simple plan. Say the budget is going to be short. Talk about cutting programs. Finish it off by saying that we need new "revenue sources" or we will suffer.

The funny thing is he may have created a situation of unintended consequences that do gooder liberals always commit. He has opened up an avenue for the consummate Democratic desire for higher taxes. Now leading members of the Democrat party are looking at increasing the tax on cigarettes.

On Thursday health advocates noted that Kentucky has the highest rates of smoking and lung cancer among the states and called for an increase of 75 cents a pack in Kentucky's 30-cent-a-pack cigarette tax.

Richards said he agreed with Senate Democratic Leader Ed Worley of Richmond, who said he preferred to consider a cigarette tax increase before cutting education funding.

"Yes I do," Richards said. "… I don't know where we will go with it, but I think there are several of us in the House that would be very interested in looking at the cigarette tax."

This puts Beshear in a tough situation. He can either go along with the tax increases and allow it to be a wedge issue in four years or he can back off his dire predictions for the state government's finances. Either way he is going to look stupid.

My favorite part is they are going after one of the more repressive taxes. Most of those who smoke are in the lower socio-economic scale. Making this a tax that would hit the poorest in society the hardest. But I guess that it is OK as long as the money goes to help the children.

Even better, the tax will cause people to smoke less which means that revenue will fall well below expectations. Leaving us in the same position we are in now. So everyone out there remember to smoke up. It is for the children.

The smoking ban is back in place in Louisville. Once again people using a legal product are being discriminated against. The sad thing is there was an actual attempt at compromise on this issue. One that would have accommodated both sides on the issue.

The compromise allowed for a establishments to have a separate smoking room as long as they had a separate ventilation system. This is a good compromise. Any room with a good ventilation system will dissipate lingering smoke. The separation of the ventilation would keep smoke from making its way to the non-smoking side of the place.

Heck I used to go the cigar bar in Lexington when I lived there and before they banned smoking. They had a ventilation system that was fantastic. There would be a dozen other people in their including myself smoking cigars and there was zero smoke in the air. There was not a lingering smoke smell. The reality is a good ventilation system and a separate room would solve the problem.

Unfortunately, dictator for life Abramson said he would veto the common sense compromise. His toadies in the council relented and passed what he wanted.

What really irks me is that only two Republicans voted against the measure. How could they be so cowardly to not stand against the anti-smoking bigots. What about the freedoms of their constituents and small business owners. The best quote came from Cheri Bryant Hamilton, D-5th, who voted "present".

"This is a difficult issue, but there should have been some attempt at compromise," Hamilton said. "It gets to the point that people are not just trying to protect nonsmokers, they're trying to protect anti-smokers."

I want to thank Peden and Hawkins for voting against the ban. At least we have a couple of Republicans on the council with a spine.

The most hypocritical quote in the debate came from Rev Charles Kirby.

The Rev. Charles Kirby, pastor of the Southern Star Missionary Baptist Church on Algonquin Parkway and a former smoker, told the council that he lost half of his left lung in 2006 to cancer.

"My question is: Are we more concerned about money or life?" Kirby asked, referring to business owners' claims that they lost between 12 percent and 50 percent of their profits during the six months the ban was in effect.

"I'm hoping the council will be more concerned about saving lives."

Give me a break. It isn't his money that is being effected by the law. I bet if the metro council passed a law that caused his church's collections to drop 50 percent, he would be the first one calling the council anti-religious zealots.

Our neighbors to the north of us passed a state law back in 1995 that required voters to show a picture ID before they could pull the lever in an election. Of course the Democrats freaked out and filed a lawsuit to throw out the law. The judge in the case did the sensible thing and ruled that the law was constitutional.

The Democrats have appealed the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court which heard arguments in the case yesterday. Fortunately by the types of questions asked it looks like the Supreme Court will uphold the law.

But I am trying to figure out why the Dems are so panicked about this law in the first place.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, thinks so.

"This case underscores the lengths to which Republicans will go to manufacture a problem based on fear, not facts," he said in a statement after the arguments. "Undemocratic voter ID laws are just another part of a broad Republican effort to undermine our fundamental right to vote."

Undemocratic voter id laws? What the hell is he talking about. They claim the law adversely effects indigent people and the poor. I am at a complete loss how that is. Let me get this straight. These "disenfranchised" voters went somewhere to register to vote. They know what day to vote, where there polling location is, and have means to travel to the polls. But they can't on any of the other 364 days of the year go to a local government agency and get a photo ID.

I am hard pressed to believe the requirement is a horrible burden to place on a citizen. Especially when we are talking about the sanctity of elections. The only reason I can think that the Democrats want to refuse identification requirements is so they can cheat. How else can you get illegal aliens and dead people to vote in elections? It is considerably more difficult to stuff the ballot box if you have to produce a photo ID for everyone that votes.

I have been watching the Republican primary and listening to the candidates. For me there is only one candidate in the race who is a true conservative. That man is Fred Thompson.

Up til the Iowa primary, I have avoided talking about the presidential primary. Kentucky's late primary gives us little say in who the winner will be so I didn't think it was important to cover. Besides there are a ton of national blogs covering the topic ad nauseum.

While Kentuckians don't vote is too late in the primary process to matter, there is one way Kentuckians can have a say. And that is to give money to the candidates so they can win in other states. Allowing then to generate the momentum they need to capture the nomination.

Thompson's last chance to jump start his candidacy is to win in South Carolina. Currently he is trailing in the polls, but the support for the his opponents is soft.

South Carolina is one of the most conservative states in the union. In fact moderates Romney and Giuliani have dropped out of the race because they have no chance. That means Fred is only competing against McCain and Huckabee for the conservative vote.

South Carolina is a battle he can win. But to do this he is going to have to get his message out to the people of SC. Fred Thompson needs $540,000 by Jan 11th to make the media buys he needs to win South Carolina. He is closing on that number, but needs a final push to get over the top. If you support Thompson like I do, then donate some money to help him win in SC and open up his path to the Republican nomination.

Did anyone catch the article, Stumbo Leaves Office With No Regrets in the Lexington Herald last Saturday? It was an amazing attempt by Stumbo to define his legacy. Here are some of my favorite quotes.

He also said he believes the outcome of the investigation and possibly last year's governor's race, which Fletcher lost to Democrat Steve Beshear, would have been different if Fletcher "had worked with us as he first said he would."

Three misdemeanor charges issued by a special grand jury against the governor were dismissed after Fletcher and Stumbo reached an agreement. Fletcher pardoned others who were indicted and maintained that the investigation was politically motivated.

When news broke about the investigation, Fletcher said he would seek "the unvarnished truth" and would address the situation if any wrongdoing were found.

"I would have wagered my house at that time that the situation would not have turned out as it did," Stumbo said Friday. "If he had worked with us, he still might be governor.

"What transformed him to take a defiant approach towards me and the investigation, I don't know. I'm convinced he was talked into it, but his initial position was the real Ernie Fletcher, in my opinion."

Let me get this straight. Stumbo wouldn't have pressed until he got the indictment upon Fletcher had Fletcher just helped out with the investigation. I have no comment. This statement just strains all levels of credulity. It gets better.

Stumbo said his office did not target Fletcher because he was Kentucky's first Republican governor since 1971.

I am sure that if it had been a Democrat, he would have taken the same actions. Kinda like when Miller broke the law by giving illegal raises to his assistant. Stumbo lauched an immediate investination into the matter. NOT. The hits keep coming.

He also said he cringes when he hears people say that Fletcher and his administration did nothing differently than previous administrations.

"In certain instances, isolated in previous administrations, the merit system may have been infringed upon," Stumbo said. "But if any governor tried to do what Ernie Fletcher and some of his people did, they would have gotten into the same problem."

Isolated? Give me a