Yesterday, Chandler made what I consider a political blunder. He decided to publicly announce his endorsement of Sen Barack Obama for president.

"I just came to the conclusion that of the candidates that we had, this candidate, Sen. Obama, is ultimately the one who has the best chance of bridging all of the divides that we face in this country," Chandler, D-6th District, said at a news conference in Louisville. "We need special, different leadership."

This is nothing less than a bizarre move before Kentucky's primary. A primary in which Obama is going to get slaughtered by 20+ points. I imagine Obama will lose Chandler's 6th district by a wide margin. Why would he go so strongly against the will of his constituents? Especially in a way that will most likely harm him politically.

I know Yarmuth! endorsed Obama, but Yarmuth! is a dyed in the wool liberal. It makes sense that he would endorse Obama. But Chandler is supposedly different. For years Chandler has been trying to position himself as a southern "Blue Dog" Democrat. One in touch with the roots of the Democratic party and its people. A more conservative Democrat than the national party. For him to go against the grain in the primary he must really believe that Obama is the best candidate.

This get's me back to Chandler's quote on Obama "Obama, is ultimately the one who has the best chance of bridging all of the divides that we face in this country, We need special, different leadership." Really. I want to know what part of Obama is going to bring us back together? The part where he calls rural Kentuckians bitter. That they only cling to guns and religions because government has failed them. That sounds more like Karl Marx than some new bipartisan champion.

Then there is Obama's lack of ability to understand the capital gains tax. He wants to raise the rates to promote fairness. He doesn't know that it won't soak the rich. But it will tax hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians that have money in 401K's and other investments. A move that will slow investment in the market and further damage our floundering economy. Are these beliefs that Chandler shares?

And of course there is the fact that Obama is not a new type of politician. He is an old school liberal with deep ties to the left and the corrupt party machinery in Illinois. What other conclusion can you reach when you see who he has associated with in the past? He is friends with Tony Rezko. A man who is on trial for corruption charges in Illinois. A trial that is likely to take down the governor of Illinois. He is friends with Pastor Wright. A preacher who harbors racist convictions. He is friends with William Ayers. A man who is an unrepentant terrorist. One who blew up buildings and murdered innocent people in his youth.

Why do these connections matter? Because they are the only way we can judge Obama. He has no political record of note. All we have is his judgment in deciding with who to associate. It seems to be pretty shaky when you look at people he has befriended. Yet Chandler thinks he is the best person to lead our country?

If I were running against Chandler, I know I would begin to start asking questions about what beliefs he has in common with Obama. Chandler's blunder provides a golden opportunity to tarnish his "conservative" reputation by tying him to Obama's liberal vision of America. If Obama becomes the nominee which is likely, how will he do in Kentucky? I am willing to bet that he gets trounced a second time. If so then the endorsement could turn into an anchor. One that haunts Chandler in the fall. We will have to wait and see if Republican challenger Tony McCurdy can leverage this blunder into a chance for Republicans to pick up a completely unexpected seat.

Fischer's team has decided to hold nothing back and go after Lunsford's throat on their first attack advertisement.

I don't think this ad is out of bounds at all. I know a number of people who worked for Vencor and few had anything nice to say about Lunsford. Lunsford accumulated a lot of wealth while running a business into the ground. There were many people, both patients and employees that were left hurting by his company. His shady dealings as CEO of Vencor are certainly fair game in a campaign.

Whether Democrats want to admit it or not, Lunsford does carry a lot of baggage. Baggage that will be unveiled in much greater detail if he ever gets within 10 points of McConnell this fall. Although I doubt the race will get that close, the fact of the matter is Lunsford is unelectable. If the Democrats want to be competitive they should nominate someone else in the primary.

I believe that is the point that Fischer is trying to make with this ad and the release of his new site TheLunsfordCollection.com. Unfortunately for Fischer, he hasn't made the case that he should be that person.

First, he doesn't have the positive name recognition to successfully pull off this type of attack. Negative ads will bring an opponents positives down in the polls. One of the side effects to attack ads is the lowering of ones own positives. A good negative attack will lower your opponents more than your own. Normally, one must have fairly high positives before undertaking a good attack campaign. Unfortunately for Fischer he barely registers in the polls. All these ads are going to do is depress voting in the race and not propel him to victory.

Secondly, his campaign has been a show of embarrassing incompetency. The fact that his attack ad breaks the campaign breaks FEC laws is incomprehensible. How can a campaign for the U.S. Senate know so little of the campaign laws?

All you have to do is read Democratic stalwarts at Page One Kentucky to get an almost daily stream of stupid things Fischer's campaign has done. Not exactly the type of campaign that instills a lot of confidence in anyone.

On the heels of firing two Fletcher Republicans who where confirmed, Beshear is now attacking Cowgill, the head of the council on post secondary education.

Beshear is claiming that the hiring was illegal, and now he got the "legal ruling" from John "Lapdog" Conway that magically shows that he was right. Now it appears that Beshear is going to abolish the council and reform it if they don't fire Cowgill.

In fact Beshear is so bitter about the who issue, that he won't allow Cowgill to be a candidate in the "new search".

The governor said yesterday that Cowgill, who is scheduled to take over Thursday as the permanent president, should not be considered in the new search because his inclusion would give other candidates the impression that the process isn't fair.

Did I happen to mention that Cowgill just happens to be a Republican? Beshear has become the king of petty partisan politics. Didn't he promise to abolish partisan politics if elected? I thought he was going to bring in a new era of bipartisan government. If he did, it didn't last long.

I don't know, this move to fire Cowgill just feels slimy to me. I am left with one question. How many Republicans are left in state government? It seems like he has effectively rooted out as many as he can. It stands in stark contrast to the non-partisan nature of the Fletcher administration where 60% of hires were Democrat.

Fortunately the public is realizing the ridiculousness of Beshear's administration and it is showing up in his approval ratings. They have fallen through the floor. He currently enjoys a 38% approval rating. That is the same rating that Fletcher enjoyed at the nadir of his approval ratings. Those numbers showed up after an "indictment" and countless beatings from the press. Beshear has suffered none of those hardships and still has abysmal rating numbers. That tells you all you need to know about how bad Beshear's term has been.

Congratulation Beshear! You have quickly become less popular than Fletcher. Keep up the good work.

I know that many people believe that Obama has wrapped up the Democratic nomination. He leads in delegates and he leads in the popular vote. Hillary can't win. Why would Hillary still be hanging in the race? Is she just trying to be obstinate? Does she not want to face up to reality? Or could she really still have a chance?

I think she has a chance. While Obama currently leads the popular vote by 500,000 votes, those results don't include Florida and Michigan. I think it would be silly to include Hillary's votes in Michigan since Obama wasn't on the ballot. But the same is not true for Florida. They were both on the ballot. Therefore I think it is perfectly reasonable to count Florida's votes in the totals. If you do the Hillary is only trailing Obama in the popular vote by 205,581 votes.

That is still a lot of votes to make up in with only 8 primaries left. None of them outside North Carolina (which Obama should win) have large voter populations. The remaining primaries are North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota. Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics provides a spread sheet of the remaining primaries along with potential outcomes. If we take the totals from the remaining states excluding West Virginia and Kentucky you get a pickup of 115,000 votes for Hillary. Most of the votes come from the huge victory she will probably win in Puerto Rico.

That still leaves her 100,000 votes short of what she needs to surpass Obama. Now let's look at West Virginia. Hillary has been winning most of Appalachia by 40 points. That trend continued in the Pennsylvania primary. It is highly probable that the pattern will continue in West Virginia. I wouldn't be surprised if she won the there by at least 35 points. That would giver her nearly 100,000 votes from West Virginia alone.

Kentucky will be another pro-Clinton area. The eastern portions of Kentucky are in Appalachia where she wins big. In addition the urban parts of Kentucky have large lower class white populations that Hillary has dominated which will easily offset the heavy black areas. All in all, the demographics point to a big Hillary win in Kentucky. In fact recent polling shows her up by 30 points. I think Hillary will win Kentucky by at least that margin, but let's be conservative and say she wins by 25 points. If so then she will still pick up another 110,000 votes.

With the votes from Kentucky and West Virginia she will easily outpace Obama in the popular vote when Florida is included. That is all she will need to take her case to the super delegates. And if Obama continues to flail on the trail, I wouldn't be surprised if the super delegates cling to these counts as justification for nominating Hillary. So don't count Hillary out just yet.

Update: I tried to write this up Wednesday night, but didn't have the time. I noticed today that Michael Barone doesn't think this is such a crazy scenario either.

Earth Day always sounds so noble. How can one be against the Earth? If Earth Day was about teaching people how to save money through conservation or if it was about cleaning up litter and teaching people not to throw trash out their window, it would be a day worth celebrating.

Unfortunately, it has been created and co-opted by anti-capitalists and is just another politically correct avenue to bash capitalism. That is why we get articles from Time magazine on fighting the "war" against global warming. There is only one problem with this meme. The Earth is no longer warming. In fact the temperatures in the last decade have plateaued. Looking at the cool temperatures from this year, it could even be said that the current trend is towards cooling.

Not exactly what one would expect if the green house gases were driving Earth's temperatures. But that hasn't stopped the haters of capitalism. They continue to call for more drastic measures to save our planet. Fortunately, as temperatures drop their credibility will fall somewhere near zero. As Maximus from Gladiator would say. "The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end".

As far as this so called "War on Global Warming", my thoughts are best summed up from the computer Joshua from the 80's movie War Games. "The only winning move is not to play."

I was amused that Beshear bemoaned partisan politics as the primary reason for failure in this year's legislative session. While I disagree with his assessment of the problem let's assume he is right. Partisanship killed the session. What does Beshear do to help improve the bipartisan relationship in Frankfort?

He removes two late Republican Fletcher appointments saying they were not properly confirmed in the session. Even though both met the constitutional mandate of being confirmed by the Senate. Let's check the Kentucky Constitution to make sure.

Inferior state officers and members of boards and commissions, not specifically provided for in this Constitution, may be appointed or elected, in such manner as may be prescribed by law, which may include a requirement of consent by the Senate, for a term not exceeding four years, and until their successors are appointed or elected and qualified.

Seems pretty clear to me. In fact both Fletcher appointments were confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate. At the same time, Fletcher's late term Democratic appointment magically gets to keep his appointment. Hmmm.

Let's put aside the legal aspect for a minute. Even if we assume that what Beshear did was legal, there is no doubt that his actions are anything less than partisan politics. There is no other way to look at it. He removed Republicans while keeping Democrats. It doesn't get any more partisan than that.

I am glad to see Beshear is diligently working to improve the bi-partisanship in Frankfort. Especially after decrying the effects of partisanship in the session.

Best Buy recently announced that they were no longer going to sell Lexmark printers in its stores.

Best Buy is no longer selling Lexmark printers in its 1,200-plus stores, dealing a blow, some say, to the Lexington-based company's plan to revive its struggling inkjet brand by focusing on tech-savvy people who print more.

Lexmark has prominently pushed its lineup of wireless inkjet printers at stores, trying to shed its dependence on low-end printers whose owners don't use enough ink -- a printer company's key profit driver.

"It's a disturbing sign for the future of inkjet," said Tom Carpenter, vice president and senior equity analyst at Hilliard Lyons in Louisville, noting the company also has a limited presence in Staples stores.

Lexmark has boasted in recent months about the popularity of its wireless inkjet printers, telling investors it held 30 percent of the domestic market for the products in December.

Personally, I think Lexmark should stop wasting resources on ink jet printers. It is a dead technology. Why would anyone buy an ink jet printer? The ink is expensive and drys up if not used. There is no cheap alternative for refilling cartridges and the quality of printing on regular paper is poor. The only printer that makes sense to buy is a laser printer. The quality of print outs is superior and toner doesn't dry up from lack of use. The cost of new printer cartridge might be more, but the frequency of refills is considerably less.

What about those people wanting to print photographs? Why would anyone print their own photos? You have to pay for expensive paper and the expensive ink. It is just as expensive to upload one's pictures to a web site like Shutterfly and have them develop the images. Or if you are in a hurry you could take them into Walmart and print them there.

Besides printing their are numerous sites that allow one to upload pictures and have on-line photo galleries. What easier way to "carry" around one's pictures than to have the always available on-line. I imagine the future will also bring about more digital picture frames that can display hudreds of digital pictures.

With all of the options available, the need for ink jet printers have passed. Lexmark should embrace the future and stop wasting money on a dead technology.

The legislative session is over. What were the results? A failure might be too kind of a euphemism for the debacle that was this year's legislative session.

Let's review Beshear's top priorities from last year's campaign:

1. Casino gambling. It didn't even make it out of the Democratic controlled house. Afterwards, Beshear broke his campaign promise and championed a 70 cent tax increase on cigarettes. The Democrats in his own party ignored him as they sought to raise it 25 cents. The Republicans in the senate balked and the tax was dead.
2. Ethics reform. It made it through both the house and the senate, but never made it through conference. Where was Beshear in attempts to push it through? MIA.
3. Pension reform. Again legislation that fell short at the bell. Beshear was no where to be found on this issue either as it died in the House after conference.
4. Prison Overcrowding. Beshear completely passed on this issue. He is going to have another commission look into the problem and might have a resolution in 4 years.

I don't know how it could have been any less of a failure.

"Worst ever,'' said Rep. Brent Yonts, a Greenville Democrat who has been in the House since 1997. "It's been the session from hell.''

"I've been here 24 years. It was the worst ending I've ever seen," said House Speaker Pro Tem Larry Clark, D-Okolona. "I'm embarrassed to be part of leadership."

Where does the failure lay? Let's ask Beshear.

But the governor added, "It was a disappointing session, and it was partly disappointing because … of the seeming dysfunction of the legislative process from time to time."

He also said the legislature has become "so partisan that it's difficult to get anything done because it seems that many times the partisanship trumps good government."

Partisanship? I thought partisanship wasn't going to matter. During the Democratic debates Beshear said he would force legislation through if elected. I remember the remarks perfectly because after making the comments Comrade Richards told Beshear he had no idea how the legislative process works.

Besides, how is it partisanship when the Democratic leadership in the house suffered a complete breakdown? Their bickering slowed the legislative process to a crawl.

They were weeks late in delivering a budget and other important legislation to the Senate. Leaving very little time for the Senate to pass their own version and even less time for compromise to be reached in conference.

The only Democrat that showed any leadership at all was freshman Rep Stumbo. He helped cobble together a deal with Senate Republicans to get the budget passed. It was the Dem's only shining moment from the session. Otherwise the entire four months was filled with Democratic ineptitude. A far cry from the "partisanship" that Beshear claimed.

One of the worst aspects of the budget is the provision to release felons early from jail. The decision obviously has some prosecutors a bit concerned.

Some Kentucky prosecutors are concerned about a potential "mass exodus" of felons leaving jails and prisons in coming months because of a provision in the budget allowing nonviolent inmates to serve the last six months and possibly more of their sentences on home incarceration. Advertisement

Chris Cohron, commonwealth's attorney for Warren County and president-elect of the Kentucky Commonwealth's Attorney Association, said the proposal, part of the state's effort to save money and reduce jail crowding, is shortsighted, lacking in specifics and dangerous.

"If you open up the floodgates to these people and put them on home incarceration, it's not going to prevent them from committing new offenses," he said. "I think in the financial interest of the state, we are going to severely jeopardize public safety."

While I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the prosecutors, I also have a larger more general question. How have we gotten to the point that we can't even fulfill one of the most vital roles of government? Government only has a few roles that it must perform to maintain an orderly society. Enforcing and upholding the laws of the state are first most among them. We are a state of laws. We must enforce them and punish those who chose to break the law. We shouldn't be letting people out of jail early because we are short on money.

Taxpayer's money should go first to make sure we can uphold the law. All of the other legislator's pet projects (public education, health care, parks, etc) that government doesn't have to perform should take second stage to the full funding of our judicial system. Anything less is a gross dereliction of duty and waste of taxpayer funds.

I think it is safe to assume at this point that Lunsford will be facing Sen McConnel this weekend. The only obstacle in Lunsford's way is a blunder of colossal proportions. Take a look at the latest numbers and then I'll explain why.

Lunsford's only real rival, Fischer, is in deep trouble. I am not talking about the fact that he is statistically even with non-candidate David Williams. He has the money and resources to move his numbers significantly. Fischer's main problem is the fact that Lunsford is doing well.

I suspect that David Williams is going to finish around 10% of the vote. I imagine that the other 4 candidates are going to garner between 1-3% of the vote each. That means that 15% of the vote total will go to 5 candidates without a shot. Leaving only 85% of the vote for Fischer and Lunsford to divide. The problem for Fischer is Lunsford already enjoys a majority of the remaining votes. Therefore Fischer has to accomplish two things in the next 6 weeks. He needs to get his numbers up over 40% AND drive down Lunsford's numbers to somewhere around 40%.

There is where the paradox lies. For him to drive down Lunsford's numbers, he is going to have to go negative. The problem is it is hard to build your own numbers while going negative on an opponent. He has very little time to accomplish both tasks. All Lunsford has to do is continue to run positive adds and ignore the rest of the field. It should be easy for him to run the clock out.

Education officials across the state are warning that the spending plan passed last week by the General Assembly may leave schools facing wide-ranging financial difficulties.

Kentucky Education Commissioner Jon Draud released a budget analysis yesterday that said funding levels for education allotted in the budget don't provide school districts with the resources they need.

Draud, a former Republican member of the state House, said Kentucky needs additional revenue to handle its financial woes.

"This is not so much about financial support as it is about a philosophy that children are important and that their education should be our primary concern," Draud said in a statement.

Give me a break. Every year it seems like we pour more and more into the money pit that is called education. Every year we seem to get less and less for our money. Yet the educators always seem to need more. How much money does it take to educate a child? You need a teacher, school books, and a classroom. Everything else is unnecessary.

Learning is a simple process. The teacher provides guidance and the students work at the subject until they begin internalizing the knowledge. Wow, that wasn't very complicated. It isn't exactly rocket science. We definitely don't need fancy new fangled methodologies of teaching. It seems like education has turned into one giant infomercial. You can lose 50 pounds in two weeks. You can learn better using some cool new methodology. Both are bogus.

Mental education is like strength training. You have to work hard at it. But if you do then you will see the results. When I have to learn a new tool or programming language what do I do? I get a book (teacher) that provides me with the basic principles of the subject. Next, I spend time working with the tool until I master it. It takes time and hard work. There is no magic short cut. You can't play around all spring and summer and expect to plant and harvest a crop all in the fall. It doesn't work that way. Educating our children is no different. And it shouldn't take a gazillion dollars to do it.  

Heck, I could hire a teacher and rent out a small room and have my own 1 classroom school and charge half of what we pay per child and provide a solid education based on hard work. If that is true, why do the educators need all of this extra money to "educate" or children. Now, I know that you need extra money for special education and for teaching delinquents, but it can't cost THAT much extra.

Personally, I think the educators in this state need to go back to first principles of education and simplify the process to reduce the amount of money we spend on education. Instead of trying to throw more money at the problem maybe we should double our efforts at making the kids work harder. Such an idea shouldn't take more money, and in the process we may find out that kids might actually learn more.

Every year the "Silence Over Thunder" coalition gets together to protest the use of military planes in "Thunder Over Louisville". They believe the military planes represent war and not entertainment.

Harmer stressed that the coalition was not opposed to having an air show or the fireworks, only Thunder's military aspect....

...Several coalition members -- dressed in yellow T-shirts that said "War is No Future" on the front and "Nonviolence or Nonexistence" on the back -- left the picnic in mid-afternoon to pass out fliers to Thunder spectators. They planned a "nonviolent witness" on the Great Lawn.

These people make me sick. They smugly sit there and preach the rejection of violence as if it was some enlightened position of moral superiority. Do they think the rest of us love violence? That we want to have a military? That we revel in fighting wars? We do not. But we understand that we must have a military to defend the principles upon which this country was founded. Those rights outlined in our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We can only have these rights if we are determined to keep them. The only means to ensure that right, is through the ability to provide self defense. Otherwise we open ourselves up to become the subjects of tyranny. The military provides us with that form of self defense. Those planes we see flying over Louisville are the same planes that make it possible to live in the land of the free.

No, what these "peace" people are really preaching is for us to disarm ourselves. To completely surrender to evil. For if we reject the notion of self defense then we will be left with nothing but to ability to beg for mercy from our enemies.

Evil grants no mercy.

While they pontificate on the evil of our military they are really celebrating a culture of death. The inevitable results of their beliefs. Think of it this way: Refusing to provide self defense is like a sheep talking to the wolf. The sheep may talk about how it sees the habits of the wolf as morally wrong. The wolf just sees the sheep as dinner.

For those of us who love life. Who love living in the country that allows us to live our lives as we see best. We see the military as a necessity to protect those precious rights. So really, by embracing our military we are really celebrating our most precious possession, our lives.

Today the Courier featured an article about lobyists throwing a shin dig for State Senators at Thunder.

While hundreds of thousands of people will likely be standing in a cool rain to watch Saturday's Thunder Over Louisville, some Kentucky state senators will be dining in style with a riverfront view inside the Muhammad Ali Center. Advertisement

The party is courtesy of some of Frankfort's most prominent lobbyists, including Ronny Pryor, Mike Shea, John McCarthy, Terry McBrayer and Ellen Williams.

It's the second year for the event that puts lobbyists elbow to elbow with senators just before they head back to Frankfort for the final two days of the 2008 session, April 14 and 15.

I love how they make it sound all sinister.Its as if the Republicans are cozying up to the lobbyists and fat cats. They only care about the wealthy.

But Dick Beliles, chairman of Common Cause of Kentucky, said the event and its timing raise questions. He noted that none of the sponsors are human-service providers, some of which received large cuts in the budget the General Assembly passed last week.

"It's the moneyed interests that are going to get a better chance at access," Beliles said. "It gives them too much access … and it's pretty darn obvious that that's what it's for."

The whole thing is kinda funny. Can they be any more stereotypical? How will this party with two days left in the session going to matter? All the major legislation is written. Its not like the senators can make a fleury of last minute changes to legislation just because they talked to lobbyists a few days before the end of the session.

This type of party is about making connections. It allows the lobbyists a chance to meet the senators and get to know then one on one. It will make it easier when they call on them in the future. In fact there is NOTHING at all wrong with the event.

John Schaaf, general counsel for the Legislative Ethics Commission, said the event is legal.

This article is nothing but a cheap shot at Republicans. An attempt to throw mud on them after they deep sixed the tax and spend instincts of the Democrats. Of course, I could be wrong. I am sure they will have a major article the next time lobyists hold an event for Democrats. But for some reason, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

Yarmuth! during his brief tenure in Congress has done little to help funding for the major bridge projects in Louisville. Trying to look like he is "doing something about it", he has decided to jump on board a really bad idea. A federal bank used exclusively to pay for major transportation projects.

Congress should pass a second economic stimulus package that would include a new federal bank to pay for major transportation projects like the Ohio River bridges, according to U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth. Advertisement

"We have the potential to make a historic investment in the long-term economic growth of this country by establishing a federal bank to accelerate billions of dollars in long-overdue infrastructure projects," Yarmuth, D-3rd District, wrote in a letter yesterday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., urging her to pursue the idea.

A federal infrastructure bank would obtain money from investors in exchange for a guaranteed rate of return. The investment money would in turn be made available for projects.

The bank would be nothing but a scheme to free up money in the budget so they can spend it elsewhere. The way it would work is simple. Investor A would put $1,000,000 in the new found bank. The bank would then use the money to build "infrastructure". In the mean time the bank would pay some rate of return. Let's say it is 5%. Now all they have to do is pay $50,000 in interest each year for use of the $1,000,000. That would free up $950,000 in the budget. Basically, it is a "creative" way to take on more debt so politicians in DC can spend more money.

The bank would answer that problem. At the same time, using private investment money on projects could free up more traditional sources of federal money for other projects, Yarmuth said.

What scares me the most about Yarmuth! is not this silly liberal idea, but his fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. Check out this quote.

Kentucky "has been doing everything it can to fund this project," Yarmuth wrote. "However, the federal government has a responsibility to assist in the completion of this and other national initiatives. This responsibility presents Congress with an extraordinary opportunity to generate long-term economic growth, create jobs, and rebuild our nation."

The last sentence is unbelievable. Government spending money is going to create long-term economic growth and create jobs? He can't be serious? Government doesn't "create jobs". It just takes money from the productive parts of society and redistributes it to fill some perceived need. While government might employee some people through these efforts, the loss of jobs from the private sector is much greater.

The dynamic is the natural result from the removal of capital from free markets. The money going to feed the bumbling government is money that could have been invested in profitable private companies. Those investments would have created jobs as companies try to find ways to expand profit. Productive jobs that would be better for the long term growth of our country than short term government jobs.

I think Yarmuth! should take some basic economics courses. If not then voters need to send him packing in the fall. Hopefully it will happen before his ignorance can damage our nation's fragile economy.

Polling came out on the 3rd congressional Republican primary. They show Northup comfortably ahead. She is leading her nearest rival Theineman by 68 points (79-11). A lead that is insurmountable with less than two months to go. Her win will set up an interesting rematch this fall.

Two things will be different this time around. As it stands right now, it looks like McCain will win Kentucky easily in the fall. (I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell doesn't win as easily). The success of McCain's campaign should soften the anti-Republican sentiment that was so overwhelming two years ago. Even with the strong tide back then, Yarmuth was only able to squeak out slim margin of victory. The playing field will be more level this time swinging the advantage back to her.

Secondly, Yarmuth now has a voting record. One that is very liberal. Northup should be able to draw a sharp contrast with her more moderate record in Congress and his extreme Liberalism.

Personally, I think the race is very winnable for Northup. A contest that will likely prove a barometer for the rest of the country. If Northup can regain her seat it should bode well for Republicans nationally. If not, then the Republicans are probably going to suffer another bad year.

Fischer is going to report he raised over one million dollars at the end of the first reporting period.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Greg Fischer says his upcoming campaign finance report will show that he's collected more than $500,000 from donors in addition to the $510,000 of his own money he has pumped into his bid.

The Fischer campaign is rightly excited about the milestone. They can now be considered serious players in the game.

"Dollar by dollar, voter by voter, momentum is growing stronger in every region of the state. We are confident that our campaign is positioned to defeat Bruce Lunsford on May 20," Fischer said in a statement. "Voters are beginning to realize I am the real Democrat offering real change."

But now for the reality check. He raised $500,000 in the first 3 months of the year. At his current pace he will only have raised about $750,000 by the end of the primary season. That isn't much money compared to the $10,000,000 that McConnell has already raised. The early money is the easy money. It will be interesting to see if he can keep up the pace.

But money isn't his biggest problem. He is polling in the single digits. He needs to start spending the money on advertising yesterday. I have no idea what he is waiting around for. Lunsford is already on the air. McConnell is running ads as well. Soon Hillary and Obama will be filling up the air waves in Kentucky. His opportunity will soon be drowned out in the noise of other campaigns.

In the end, I think the story line for his campaign will be "too late". He was too late entering the race. He is too late in putting his own money into the campaign. He is too late running television ads.

He should have started in the middle of last year. Then he might have had the money an organization to gain name recognition and make a run at the primary. At this point I think he will surpass David Williams, but he will probably finish in a disappointingly distant second place.

Democrats, on the verge of plummeting into the abyss, were pulled back by Stumbo. Even he realized that not passing a budget would fall squarely on their shoulders. He smartly decided to bypass leadership and strike a deal with the Senate to assure a budget before the end of the session.

All his good work may be for naught. Apparently Beshear is determined to jump into the the abyss. He is thinking about calling a special session to "raise revenue".

"If that trend continues I think you're going to find the General Assembly back up here because I'm going to bring them back up here and once again talk about raising some revenue," Beshear said during an impromptu news conference outside his office.

Now everyone knows that "raising revenue" is a euphemism for higher taxes. So really, Beshear is going to call a special session with the single goal of raising taxes. Not only is it a stupid idea, but one that is doomed to fail. The Senate has repeatedly said they aren't going to raise taxes. All a special session will do is waste money that could be used to pay for other government services. The fault for the failure will fall squarely on Beshear and his fellow Democrats.

I only have one question for Beshear as his approval rating will undoubtedly continue to tumble. How low can you go?

It is easy to tell if they passed a good budget. See who is complaining about it. If liberals hate it, then it is probably a good budget. So let's see what the liberals have to say.

We can start with the Kentucky Association of State Employees:

"It's just a terrible budget. They need to suck it up and approve the tax increases," said Lee Jackson, president of the Kentucky Association of State Employees. State workers and teachers are slated to get 1 percent raises the next two years.

How about the KEA?

Feeling "appalled and indignant," leaders of the Kentucky Education Association called on state lawmakers to scrap their proposed two-year budget and start over.

"The budget produced by the conference committee constitutes a giant step backward for schools and the Commonwealth’s future," said a statement released Wednesday morning by the association.

How about House Budget Chairman Moberly?

But House budget committee chairman Harry Moberly -- a Richmond Democrat who voted against a budget for the first time in his 29-year legislative career on Wednesday -- said the move to accept those projects will have long-lasting implications.

By acquiescing, it appears that House Democrats are "dancing on a string like puppets" for Williams and the Senate, he said.

"You might as well give him an emperor's crown," Moberly said. "It hurts our future relationship with the Senate because of that."

Moberly keeps the hits coming.

The budget, Moberly said, is "a diabolical deal that's coming through to trade a few projects for the future of this commonwealth."

Williams, Moberly said, got all he wanted in the budget. But education and human services will remain underfunded, Moberly charged, because the Senate would not agree to a House-passed 25-cent increase in the 30-cent-a-pack cigarette tax.

"This is a bad budget for education and human services. Really bad," Moberly said.

I wonder what Steve Beshear thinks?

House Bill 406 now goes to Gov. Steve Beshear, who has said he is disappointed it does not include new revenue sources. He has not, however, said if he intends to veto it or remove line items.

How about ultra liberal senator Scorsone?

But Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, D-Lexington, said the budget falls well short of adequately funding education and social services. If it were a paper for a school class, he said, it would be graded as "incomplete."

Scorsone said more revenue from a tax increase -- such as the cigarette-tax increase approved by the House -- was needed.

The House bill, which included additional small tax increases, would have raised more than $290 million over two years.

One final comment on the budget.

"The teachers and state employees are being shafted," said Rep. Derrick Graham, D-Frankfort, in a passionate floor speech. "It hurts the children of the commonwealth. And it hurts the economic well-being of this commonwealth."

Hmmm, seems like the liberals hate it. That means it must be a good budget. Sen Williams did an outstanding job applying conservative principles to the states fiscal situation. Congratulation goes out to him and others in the Senate who crafted a budget that will allow us to live within our means.

Obama claims to be a new generation of politician. Unfortunately on all the issues he seems to be an nothing more than an old school liberal. Take his stance on concealed carry permits recently in Pennsylvania.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Those words sound eerily similar to the argument the left made back in....1990. The problem is many states have enacted concealed carry laws since then. In every case there has been no "atmosphere were more innocent people could get shot".

Kentucky is a perfect example. They passed the concealed carry law back in 1996 among claims of a return to the wild wild west. Innocent people would be caught in the cross fire they claimed. It never happened.

It boggles my mind that Obama could cling to such liberal dogma well after those "fears" have been proved to be unfounded. How can he be a new politician when he is blind to the mounting evidence that he is wrong on this simple second amendment issue? Probably because he isn't a new politician. He is a just another liberal Democrat who has wrapped himself in pretty rhetoric.

Two things stick out about the race as it stands today. First, a poll came out at the beginning of the week which showed that Lunsford holds a commanding lead in the race. He has 42% with his nearest competitor David Williams at 11%. Everyone else is virtually tied near 5%.

This must be frustrating for Cassaro and Fischer. They are the only two candidates who appear to be seriously running outside of Lunsford and yet they trail behind non-candidate David Williams. Since none of the campaigns have started serious advertising these numbers must reflect generic name recognition. David Williams obviously enjoys a nice bounce from sharing the same name as the Republican Senate leader.

It is impossible to win a race unless your name recognition is at least as strong as the front runner. Both Fischer and Cassaro are going to have to start advertising soon if they hope to gain the name recognition in the next two months to be competitive with Lunsford. If they wait much longer it will be too late and they will lose.

Secondly, the liberals in this state must be going crazy today. It appears that their golden boy, Andrew Horne, has endorsed Lunsford in the Democratic primary.

How could he betray them by endorsing Lunsford? They hate Lunsford almost as much as they hate McConnell. I truly feel sorry for them today. It sucks when someone you admire sticks a knife in your back. At the same time, I have no idea why Horne would make such an endorsement? It's not like he controls hundreds of thousands of votes. Why throw away your core support for nothing? Of course after what happened to James Brandon Spencer, we might want to watch to see what type of cushy state job Horne lands.

How do you get your seat back in the State house after you serve as Attorney General? Apparently all you have to do is provide a cushy job in state government for the one who holds your seat.

An eastern Kentucky lawmaker who resigned abruptly just three weeks before the start of the 2008 General Assembly session has taken a $60,000-a-year state job in the Transportation Cabinet.

Former Democratic state Rep. James Brandon Spencer of Prestonsburg left office in December. He was replaced by former Democratic Attorney General Greg Stumbo who had previously served the Floyd County district for 24 years.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Stumbo. Remember Stumbo crying foul over Fletcher's supposed "patronage"? What Fletcher may or may not have done pales in comparison to this brash act. For this not to be patronage, we must believe ALL of the following.

1. This well paid government job magically opened up near his home just a few weeks after he resigns from office.
2. That no one else in the area was more qualified for the position.
3. That Stumbo had nothing to do with him getting the job.

We would truly have to suspend disbelief to swallow that pill.

"Taking care of our own" seems to be the operating mantra since the Democrats retook the governor's mansion in Frankfort.

For a while now, many have thought that Obama has wrapped up the Democratic nomination. The argument goes that he has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Of course, I didn't think the delegate count would matter as much as the popular vote when it came time to decide on the nominee. Especially after the 2000 presidential election.

While some think Obama's lead in the popular vote was insurmountable, I wasn't so sure. I know Kentucky isn't the most populous state in the country, but it has interesting numbers that might allow us to extrapolate to other primaries. The latest polls show that Hillary has a 29 point lead in Kentucky.

Hillary winning Kentucky is not that surprising. She dominates among blue collar Democrats and Kentucky's Democratic party is dominated by this demographic. Looking at the internals a couple of things stick out to me. I believed Obama would win the Louisville area. Between the large black population and the Highlands I thought he would dominate in such numbers to easily outpace Hillary in the rest of the county. Instead, the numbers show Hillary with a 12 point lead in Louisville. I would think these numbers bode well for her in Southern Indiana.

The other surprise came from the fact that Hillary led Obama by a whopping 52 points in Eastern Kentucky. But looking at the national trends spotted by horacecox at Red State, we see that these lob sided numbers aren't all that unique for Appalachia.

It turns out that Hillary has been dominating the Appalachian area all along.

As the map shows this bodes very well for Hillary in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Huge victories in these three states would provide a massive boost for Hillary in the popular vote. As horacecox rightly points out, the rest of the states remaining may not be be as inhospitable to Hillary as many believe. Throw in Puerto Rico and she may gain enough votes in these states to give her the popular vote lead heading into the convention.

Sounds far fetched? Leading election prognosticator, Michael Barone, doesn't think it is.

My projections on Jay Cost's spreadsheet put Clinton ahead in popular votes, however they're measured. But my projections on my legal pads leave her behind in delegates. Each of these contests allocates most of a state's delegates by congressional districts, except for South Dakota which has only one congressional district; Montana also has only one congressional district, but it allocates most of its delegates in the two congressional districts it had in 1980, before the apportionment following the 1980 Census reduced its number of House seats to one. I give Obama small delegate edges in North Carolina (5) and Oregon (6), and Clinton relatively small edges in Pennsylvania (22), Indiana (12), West Virginia (10), Kentucky (17), Montana (3) and South Dakota (3) and a relatively big edge in Puerto Rico (20). Even so, that reduces Obama's current lead among "pledged" delegates (those selected in primaries and caucuses) from 1,414-1,247 to 1,655-1,565.

We could very easily have Obama with the delegate lead while Hillary has the popular vote lead. I wonder what the Democratic party will do when they have two candidates with equal claim to the nomination? Who knows, but it will be fun to watch.

It has been an amazing legislative session and one in which I am sure the Democrats would love to forget. Fresh off their failure to pass casino legislation and raise taxes, they are looking for new ways to self destruct. It looks like the compromised bill that came out of conference meeting today might provide such an avenue.

UPDATE 4:39 p.m.: Rep. Charlie Hoffman, the House Democratic Caucus chairman told the House on the floor that the closed door meeting would be 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, much to the surprise of many members, some of whom were heard muttering aloud, "tomorrow?"

"I'm not going to say they're going to revolt, but they're not going to sign off on it," he said.

Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, said he was most frustrated that lawmakers would be unable to tag coal severance tax money to go back to specific projects in their districts. Instead, counties would have to apply for the money through the Governors Office on Local Development.

"From what I've heard, I haven't seen any reason to vote for it," he said.

Rep. Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg and a former House floor leader, said this would be the first budget in 28 years in the legislature that he would vote against the budget.

"It's a bad document," he said. He said he didn't think the House would approve the compromised version.

Let me get this straight. The Democrats bicker among themselves and take much longer than normal to pass a budget. The Republican led Senate does a yeoman job of passing their own budget within the limited time remaining. They go to conference and come up with a compromise that meets somewhere in the middle. While not perfect, it does deal with the realities of a weak economy. On top of that it would avoid a special session.

And the Dems don't want to pass it. It doesn't have enough government spending they say. So much for Democrats belief in fiscal responsibility. A failure to pass a budget would highlight quite nicely their penchant for larger government.

The worse part of the Dems failure to pass the budget will be the inevitable special session. One that promises to drag on interminably as Republicans will continue resisting an increase in taxes so the Democrats can spend more money. In the mean time we will waste millions of tax payer dollars on a pointless special session. All thanks to the Democrats. A view that will undoubtedly be shared by a majority of the public. Hopefully the Republicans will be able to take advantage of it.