Friday, 28 August 2009

Rep Chandlers Drifts To The Left

I remember when Chandler first ran for U.S. Congress in the sixth district. He won the race because of two things. His name recognition and the fact that he ran as a moderate Democrat. He even started his tenure as a moderate joining the Blue Dog Democrats in DC. But over the years, I have noticed his drift to the left. Take some of his answers from a recent interview by Paul Glasser of the State Journal.

Asked about what a Health Care bill should have Chandler gave the following answer.

Would reform as expected and discussed right now, have any effect on people who already have insurance?

My understanding of the proposals being floated around right now is that they do not affect anyone who has insurance right now in a negative way. Hopefully it would over time either lower the cost of what they’ve got to pay for insurance or at least limit the rise of insurance costs. Insurance costs have been going up dramatically for the last several years, by double digit percentages annually.

This is ridiculous. The public plan option is a key ingredient in both the Senate and House bills. Legislation that would dramatically affect peoples insurance and and do it quickly. Why? Because throwing government into the private sector competition will destroy the private sector. How is that possible?

The government has two major advantages over private companies. First off, they have a limitless supply of money to fund their plan. They have not only plenty of tax payer money, but they can also print more money. I don't know of any private companies that can print their own money to fund the company. Secondly, government gets to set the rules of the game. That puts them at a huge advantage over the private counterparts. With such disadvantages it won't take long for the government to crowd out the private sector from the market.

How is government control of health care going to drive down costs? The only way government as a sole provider will be able to drive down costs is to ration the amount of health care offered. Such rationing will take us a long way away from our current level of health care availability.

What scares me is that he is not fundamentally opposed to such a public option.

I don’t think the public option has much likelihood to pass right now, that’s one of my concerns. As far as a public option goes, I’m open minded on the subject. I would have to see what kind of proposal we have on a public option. I would have to see if it did those things I mentioned before. It all depends on the details in any kind of plan that was offered.

Which means he is open to the idea of government run health care. Does that seem like a "conservative" position? Asked about lower premiums he responds with this liberal boiler plate.

One of the things I want to see happen is some way to cut costs. One of the basic problems we have in this country is that we already spend twice as much as any other country in the world per capita on health care and our health outcomes are not much better - in many instances they’re worse.

In effect, he is telling us we are paying more and getting less for our money. If our health care sucks so bad why are people all over the world coming to U.S. for health care? Why would he want to keep any of it? Yet earlier in the interview he talks about wanting to keep our level of health care. Something doesn't add up.

It gets worse. He plays the "evil insurance and pharmacutical" card when talking about containing health care costs.

One leads into the other, to a large extent. I think there are a lot of abuses in the health insurance system – we’ve seen profits of health insurance companies rise dramatically. In fact, they’ve risen some 428 percent in the last seven years, which far outstrips the rise in wages people receive.

Plus, when you see the salaries of some of these CEOs in health insurance companies make in many cases, as much as $12 million a year, there is a lot of abuse there which can be taken out of the system. Hopefully it would cut the cost to the average consumer. But at the end of day, we’ve got to address the cost of health care itself, such as the cost of pharmaceuticals – that’s one of the big areas.

Nothing about tort reform anywhere in his discussion about costs. I wonder why? Of course he saves the biggest whopper for the end when he is asked if he has spent time dispelling rumors about the plans.

Our office is continually dispelling rumors … about abortion, illegal immigrants and death panels. There’s even confusion about Medicare and Medicaid and the fact they are government programs. Those are several things people are unsure about. I think certain groups have made efforts to intentionally get that disinformation out there. It’s very important that it gets corrected whenever possible. We can’t do the right thing if we can’t get the right information to people. We’re trying to debunk any thought, for instance, there would be any death panels. Nobody’s thought about putting death panels into any legislation and nobody would consider that. It’s quite irresponsible for people to scare the public and that’s what is going on. I think, to a large extent, the insurance companies are behind those efforts.

Except that all of the misinformation he supposedly deals with really are legitimate concerns about the current health care bill. I am not sure what rumors he is dispelling because Obamacare does provide government funded abortions. There are provisions in the bill that could provide health care to illegal immigrants. The worst is Chandler'ss complete lie about death panels. If death panels were never part of the legislation then why was the wording that would have formed what are effectively death panels dropped from the Senate version?

Chandler has definitely drifted to the left since his first days as a Congressman. He has begun to take up the liberal line on more and more issues. I think it is safe to say that he is no longer a "conservative" Democrat. Since he gets elected on name and the fact that he is a conservative Democrat, I think it is fair to say that he only gets re-elected based upon his name recognition. Eventually that will not be enough to combat his liberalism and will leave him vulnerable to a strong well funded challenger. The only variable is time.

Posted by brians at 4:32 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Beshear Finally Wins One - Kinda

The special election yesterday was close as Democrat Webb eeked out a win to fill retiring Republican Charlie Borders senate seat. A win that closes the gap between Democrats and Republicans in the senate to 20-17 (Really 21-17 when you include the independent who is basically a Republican). Besides the candidates themselves who were the winners and losers Tuesday.

Big Winners
  • Charlie Borders. He got to turn his senate seat into a $110,000+ job. Not bad way to cash in on your electorial success.
  • Dan Kelley and any other Republican senator who is looking for a cushy job. If anything Beshear is very simple minded and tries to use the same hammer over and over again. Now that something he has done has finally worked, I expect he will try it again and again until it fails miserably. Therefore look to see Sen Kelley get his judgeship and then Beshear searching for more jobs to give Republican senators.
Moderate Winners
  • Democratic Party. They get to crow about a win over the Republicans in the Senate. Even though they pulled out all of the stops and still only managed to get 48% of the vote, they won. Basically, they get a few days of good PR, but the makeup of the Senate is not going to change. The Republicans will likely do very well next November now that the political winds are changing.
  • Gov Beshear. He finally gets a win even if it is by the slimest of margins. He would be a big winner except for two problems. He went all out for Webb and she still only managed 48% of the vote. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Secondly, Webb may have won but she also promised to vote against expanded gambling (even though she already voted to expand gambling in the state).  So how does her victory help him pass his signature issue of gambling? It doesn't which makes this win more symbolic than meaningful
Moderate Losers
  • David Williams - He loses a seat in the Senate. But what does it change? Republicans still hold the majority and probably will for the forseable future.
  • Republican Party - They took a loss at a time when Republicans should have all the momentum. They basically couldn't put together an effective organization to match the Democratic effort. But then the Kentucky Republican party has never been good at the ground game.
Big Losers
  • Gov Beshear narowly avoided this honor with the win. But looking at the results it is hard to find a "big loser" in this special election. The reality is electing a conservative Democrat didn't radically change the makeup of the Senate.


Posted by brians at 7:52 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (1)

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

KY Senate Special Election Today

Today voters in Robertson, Bracken, Mason, Lewis, Carter, and Greenup counties (northeastern Kentucky) go to the polls today to vote in a special election to fill the vacated seat of Republican Charlie Borders. Borders stepped down as senator when offered a position on the PSC making 6 figures. A position offered by Beshear in attempt to use appointments to wipe out the Republican majority in the state senate. As such, the special election has become a bit of a zoo. Top names from both parties have flooded the area helping each candidate campaign. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and long hours are being spent to win the seat.

Today is the culmination of all the work . We will learn today if Beshear's plan has succeeded or if it is yet another one of his mega flops. Personally, I think Ditty will win for a couple of reasons. First, the Democrats have been blatantly lying about Ditty. It was so bad that West Virginia television stations pulled the advertisements. That can't help the Democrats credibility in the election. (I know both sides say crap about their opponents, but to have your television ad pulled is pretty sad) Especially with the people who are paying attention. In a special election they are the ones who are going to vote. On top of that, the district is not in favor of Beshear's only issue, expanded gambling. A fact that comes out when Webb talks about gambling.
Webb said the election has little to do with gambling, and she defended her vote in the special session as a way to restrict gambling to places where it's already allowed, like racetracks.

“Some people are for it, some people are against it,” she said. “I'm not for expanded gaming, I don't think what I voted for was expanded gambling, I think what I voted for was an option at an existing venue.”
Webb's quotes are hilarious on two fronts. First the fact that she contradicts herself within the same sentence. She is against expanding gambling but voted to expand gambling at existing venues. Both of her statements can not be true. The fact of the matter is that she did vote for some form of expanded gambling.  Maybe not universal gambling but some additional gambling.  Secondly, to make such a farcical statement means that the district is probably not in favor of expanded gambling. Expanded gambling  is the primary reason everyone is fighting so hard for the seat. I imagine the voters in the district are smart enough to figure it out and will probably vote no to expanded gambling.

Throw in discontent at the Democrats on the national level and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ditty wins and Beshear once again ends up with egg all over his face. We will find out this evening when results are tabulated. The other loser if Ditty wins might be Republican Majority Leader Dan Kelly. If Beshear loses this round, he may not be so eager to give Kelly the District judgeship this fall. Unless he has  finally run out of cronies to appoint.

Posted by brians at 2:23 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Monday, 24 August 2009

Elendil's Journal Passes Milestone

I started Elendil's Journal almost 5 years ago. In fact my first post was Wednesday September 8, 2004. Over the five years I have been writing, I feel blessed to have people who take the time to actually read my blog. In fact, I am proud to announce that two weeks ago on August 12th (while I was on vacation) I passed 1,000,000 mark for visitors to my journal. 

I want to take a moment and thank all of those people over the last five year that have stopped by and read my site. Knowing that people read Elendil's Journal provides me with the motivation to continuine writing. Again thank you for your patronage!

Posted by brians at 9:14 PM in Announcements
Responses (0)

Temeratures Continue To Drop - But Global Warming Still Exists!

The global temperatures have been declining for years. This year looks to continue the downward trend.

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That would mean that we have now had over 10 years of temperature decline. But don't tell the global warming advocates that there is no such thing as global warming.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume," Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail.

"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen," said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England.

Yeah, that is the answer. It is just natural fluctuations in temperature. Wait a second. I thought global warming was a run-a-way phenomenon. I didn't think there was anyway we would ever see cooler temperatures. But now all of a sudden it is no longer run-a-way. It is natural fluctuations. But this is my favorite quote from the story.

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

Cherry pick? You have to be kidding me? The entire hockey stick graph that "proved" global warming exists was nothing but cherry picked data. If we go back a few hundred years before the hockey graph starts we will see temperatures near the peak of 1998. But beyond that, the fact that we could have decades of cooling and believe global warming is still taking place is ludicrous. One or two years is a "flucuation". Decades is a trend.

The funny thing is I actually agree that the cooling we are currently undergoing is a natural fluctuation. Just like the warming trend of the last 50 years was nothing less than a natural fluctuation in temperatures. The sad truth is that global warming scare was nothing less than a hoax. Much like the "ice age" scares of the 70's, it was a ginned up "crisis" that socialists in the environmental movement used in an effort to destroy capitalism. Fortunately, the world is watching their theories fall apart due to the current cooling trend. It couldn't have happened soon enough. A few more years of this nonsensical global warming scam and government may have actually implemented damaging economic policies. Policies that would have severely hampered our economy.

Posted by brians at 7:27 PM in Political Issues
Responses (0)

Saturday, 22 August 2009

Why Raising Taxes On Cigarettes Will Fail To Generate New Revenue

For some reason Democrats believe that if you raise a tax on a product new revenue will come flowing into the government coffers. Rarely does it work as planned. Why? Because when you raise taxes on a good, it becomes more expensive for the consumer. The new higher cost forces people to cut back on their usage of the good, find a work around, or forgo it all together. Take the latest tax on cigarettes. The government is hoping to reap a windfall from the tax. The only problem is that it is becoming too expensive for smokers to purchase cigarettes. So many are quitting or cutting back. Apparently, smokers are finding cheaper alternatives.
Driven largely by ever-rising tobacco prices, he's among a growing number of smokers who have turned to their green thumbs to cultivate tobacco plants to blend their own cigarettes, cigars and chew. Byars normally pays $5 for a five-pack of cigars and $3 for a tin of snuff; the seed cost him $9...

In urban lots and on rural acres, smokers and smokeless tobacco users are planting Virginia Gold, Goose Creek Red, Yellow Twist Bud and dozens of other tobacco varieties.
Yep it is much cheaper just to grow your own tobacco. Why the latest growth in home made tobacoo? You can probably guess. Higher taxes.
"Cigarette smokers say, 'Yeah, we're going to die of cancer, but do we have to die of poverty as well?'" said Jack Basharan, who operates The Tobacco Seed Co. Ltd. in Essex, England. Virtually all of his increased tobacco seed sales have been in the U.S., he said.
It is amazing how inventive people can be when faced with stifling taxation. What this means it that more people are finding ways to purchase less cigarettes. Which means less tax will be generated from the sales of tobacco. Let's look at some numbers to verify this process.

For our example let's keep it simple. We are going to have 100 smokers who are paying $1 in tax for cigarettes. The government is now collecting $100 in taxes from these smokers. The government decides to raise taxes 30%. The new tax is now $1.30 on cigarettes. Those in government believe they will now get $130 in taxes from these 100 smokers. A nice increase in revenue.

The only problem is many of the smokers can't afford the new tax. Let's assume 20 decide it is to expensive and quit smoking while 5 decide to grow their own tobacco. Our pool of smokers paying the tax has now dropped to 75 people. The government will collect $97.50 in taxes from those 75 smokers.

Wow! The government is actually taking in less money than before they raised taxes. With the growing movement to reduce smoking and now the growing of your own tobacco, I imagine Kentucky will not see anywhere near the expected revenue they hoped when they raised taxes last year. Why did we raise taxes again? Sigh.

Posted by brians at 9:23 AM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Friday, 21 August 2009

Money Bomb! Will It Matter?

Rand Paul's campaign for the U.S. Senate got a boost yesterday when they raised $433,509 in one day. A new record for in Kentucky for fund raising in a single day. While the one day total was very impressive, it still leaves him behind Grayson's haul before he even officially became a candidate for office.

I don't want to be a sour puss to the Paul fanatics, but the question is can he build financial momentum from this one day event. Will he be able to go back to the well and get these people to donate again and again. Because the reality of the primary is that he will need to raise three to four times the level of his money bomb if he  hopes to be competitive in the primary. I'll be watching to see if the Paul team can make it happen.

I imagine we will know a lot more about this race when the next quarterly financial reports are released. If Paul is hanging with Grayson in the money race, we will have a competitive primary. If not, I believe Grayson will win pulling away.

Posted by brians at 9:42 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (2)

Thursday, 20 August 2009

KY US Senate Polling

The first round of polling for the U.S. Senate Seat to replace Jim Bunning has surfaced. What strikes me when looking at the numbers is how weak the name ID of the state wide Constitutional office holders. One would think that winning a state wide office would provide a strong starting point for all of these candidates. But neither Grayson, Conway, nor Mongiardo could pull a number greater than 40% in the polls. On top of that both the Democratic primary and the Republican primaries have around 15% undecided voters. I think these numbers illustrates what a crap shoot it is to win one of the "not Governor" state wide elections. Something I have long suspected.

Red Numbers

The polls shows Trey Grayson with an 11 point lead over Rand Paul. These numbers don't tell us much about the race since 30% of those polled selected "other" or are "undecided". What it does tell us is that both candidates have room to expand their base. What I see from the numbers is that Paul has a much steeper hill to climb. Let me explain.

Paul's strength when looking at the cross tabs is with young people age 18-34. It is the only section where he holds a commanding lead in the poll. Amoung this age group he holds a 30 point lead over Grayson. Paul trails Grayson in all of the other age groups by at least 15 points. What that tells me is that Paul has captured the most energetic, but least likely to vote in a primary age group. While that will give him an "army" of young volunteers, it won't translate to victory at the ballot box. He is going to have to erase Grayson's significant lead within the other age groups.

This is where I think Rand Paul will run into two real problems. First, I think he will be outspent by Trey Grayson. Grayson has access to more money through his connections to Bunning and McConnell than Rand does. While money is not the end all determiner in who wins elections, it does mean that Grayson will be able to better communicate with the voters in the state. Which to me leads to Rand's biggest problem. Grayson doesn't have a voting record.

Rand Paul is hoping to win the primary as the "true" conservative candidate in the race. While he may actually be the most conservative candidate, he is going to have a difficult time proving it. Grayson has a blank slate with which  to start the race. All he has to do is be pro-2nd ammendment, pro-life, and oppose the Obama administrations attempts to make the U.S. a statist country and he will have fairly strong conservative credentials for the election. So the question I keep asking myself is how will Rand be able to differentiate himself from Trey? I think it will be very difficult. Especially when he is likely to be outspent.

Blue Numbers

The Democratic primary is shaping up to be the race that Mongiardo wants, a battle between the rural and urban parts of the state. Looking at the cross tabs, the only places where Conway enjoys major support is the urban parts of the state. In fact Conway leads in Louisville 46% to 29% but trails in the rest of the state 44% - 23%. The only surprising number in the cross tabs is the fact that Mongiardo is actually doing better with the more liberal elements within the party.

 ConservativeModerateLiberal
Mongiardo30%43%41%
Conway26%34%27%

I have no explanation for why these numbers are the exact opposite of what I would suspect in a rural/urban political battle. What these numbers suggest is that this is still a toss up election where neither candidate holding a significant lead in the polls. I think it will remain tight as long as Mongiardo continues to get the campaign he wants. The challenge for Conway will be to use his superior money position to break down Mongiardo's stranglehold on the rural parts of the state. Mongiardio on the other hand has to raise enough money to hold onto his base and hope to win a tight election.

Red vs Blue

When looking at the potential match ups between Grayson and Conway/Mongiardo, Grayson already enjoys a 6-7 point lead. A nice lead to have at this early in the election cycle.  The reality is next year is going to be a good year for Republicans. The growing discomfort with the direction liberal Democrats are leading the country will all but ensure it. Throw in a nasty Democratic primary and you have all the ingredients for an easy win for the Republicans next November.

Posted by brians at 11:03 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Shocker: Media Bias

It has been a long time since I have had the opportunity to post on Elendil's Journal. Between vacation and catching back up on work, I haven't had a lot of time to blog. But while reading up on the news over the last couple of weeks, I read Al Cross's commentary on Fancy Farm. I was struck by the title "One Tough Week For Grayson and Conway". I knew that Conway had screwed the pooch with his Fancy Farm speech, but I was at a loss as to why it was a bad week for Grayson.
Grayson did have the best crowd and best speech among Republicans at the picnic, but the weekend showed that Paul could be a factor in the Republican primary, making arguments and posing questions that could force Grayson to the right and into mistakes, and make him less palatable to moderate and conservative Democrats. Grayson can probably handle a top-tier race, but has yet to prove it. Paul will test him.
Let me get this straight, Grayson had the best speech and the best crowd yet it was a tough week because he has a challenger in the primary. Give me a break. He has the most money, the party machinery behind him, and a good Fancy Farm appearance. I am still trying to figure out how that was a bad week. This is nothing but media spin. The media's darling, Conway, made himself look an idiot at Fancy Farm. They have no choice but to attempt to mitigate the disaster by implying the Republican front runner had a bad week as well. Usually Al Cross writes interesting opinion pieces on Kentucky politics. This was not one of them.

Posted by brians at 12:25 AM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Friday, 14 August 2009

Out on Vacation

If you haven't noticed, I have not been blogging the last two weeks because I have been out on vacation. I'll return to blogging full time next week.

Posted by brians at 3:29 PM in Announcements
Responses (0)

Tuesday, 4 August 2009

Fancy Farm From Afar: Red Edition

The Republican side was more muted than the Democratic side. Most of the focus was on Obama and congressional Democrats. An easy target for a state that has decidedly rejected the national Democratic agenda on numerous occasions. While Grayson's theme of "because Kentucky knows better" was lame, he did deliver some nice lines.

Grayson called
the "cap and trade" legislation "a new energy tax levied every time you
start your car or flip on a light switch. It's anti-coal, and it's
anti-Kentucky."

He said it would cost Kentucky farmers and business owners at least $5 billion over the next 10 years.

"That
means higher utility bills, fewer jobs and less take-home pay. But
that's a liberal for you," Grayson said. "They'd rather punish
hard-working Kentuckians than force China or India to deal with their
own environmental records."

He even took a nice jab at his Democratic opponents.

Republican
Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who is expected to announce his
official campaign in a few weeks, said he congratulated Mongiardo and
Conway on additions to their families.

Daniel and Allison Mongiardo are expecting a child later this year, and Jack and Elizabeth Conway recently had a baby girl.

"You
all will love being parents," Grayson said. "The good news is that
babies eventually sleep regularly. The even better news is that after
November 2010, you will have plenty of time to spend with your
newborns."

Rand Paul on the other hand apparently doesn't know what party he is a member.

Paul criticized both parties for hypocicy, noting that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford ran touting family values and then took off to Argentina to meet his mistress.

As for the Democrats, he said they have typically raised taxes but haven't always paid theirs, a reference to admissions by several Obama administration nominees during confirmation hearings earlier this year.

Ummm, what party is he running for the nomination? Is he making fun of family values? I am at a loss for what his message is or more importantly who is he delivering it to. I assume he is trying to run as the outsider trying to break into the club, but when has that strategy ever proved effective?

To me the clear winner is Trey Grayson. He came off as a serious candidate who has a solid anti-Washington message. It is clear why he is the front runner. More importantly, he came off as the most Senatorial of all the candidates. Especially when put up against the angry white guy routine of Conway and the childish attacks of Mongiardo.



Posted by brians at 3:34 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Fancy Farm From Afar: Blue Edition

Since I didn't get the opportunity to attend Fancy Farm this year, I can only comment on how it was reported in the papers. But from what I have read in the Courier Journal and the Lexington Herald, it seems like the picnic had some fantastic fireworks. The biggest story from the speeches yesterday was the blue on blue violence between Democratic candidates in the U.S. Senate primary. Mongiardo started it off with theatrics by attacking Conway for being part of the "silver spoon crowd".
Mongiardo led off the speaking, attacking Conway for his decision to attend Duke University, the implication being that Conway had a privileged upbringing. Campaign staffers for Mongiardo, a University of Kentucky graduate and Hazard physician, passed out plastic silver spoons in a bid to drive home the idea that Mongiardo represents the working class-voters.

"He chooses to fight for the silver-spoon issues preferred by the champagne and caviar crowd" Mongiard said of Conway.
I know Mongiardo enjoys making crude attacks on Conway over his residency in Louisville and his attendance at Duke University, but he might have stumbled into a cohesive strategy that he could prove effective. What strategy? Good old class warfare. Amazingly, I think he could actually turn it into a cohesive and effective battle plan for taking on Conway in the primary.

Think about it. Mongiardo is going to be significantly outspent in the primary. He can turn Conway's strength into a liability by using it as further proof that Conway is part of some illusionary "elite".  Mongiardo can easily turn Conway's liberal stances into additional proof of his elitism. Take Cap-n-Trade. I know Conway says he would support it only if it didn't negatively effect Kentucky (I don't know how Ca-n-Trade wouldn't hurt Kentuckians, but that is an issue for another day), but the fact that he supports such a tree hugger initiative further ingrains in people that he supports the yuppy class.

 I imagine it could play very effectively in the rural parts of the state and the even the lower classes in urban areas. The question is will he get enough votes from these constituencies to offset the beating he will take in Louisville and Lexington? On top of that, I don't have confidence that Mongiardo is competent enough to pull of the strategy effectively.

Conway on the other hand appears to be adrift. All he did was play defense to Mongiardo.

But Conway, Mongiardo's opponent in May's Democratic primary election for the U.S. Senate, shot back that Mongiardo, an ear, nose and throat surgeon, had "misdiagnosed" him.

"When it comes to me, you can't hear the truth, you can't smell the truth and you sure as hell can't speak the truth," Conway said.

I guess someone got under his skin to make such a rash comment. The only other I took from the article is how tough Conway supposedly is.
And when a crowd of Mongiardo suporters tried to shout hm down Conway quoted former U.S. Senator Wendell Ford saying "Go ahead and chew on my hide... it only grows back tougher" before adding "You're looking at one touch son of a bitch".
You know, if you have to say how tough you are, then you probably aren't all that tough. Besides Conway comes off looking like an ass with these two quotes. I can't imagine the "angry white guy" routine is going to play all that well across the Commonwealth.

After reading the stories on Fancy Farm it was clear that Conway was the huge loser on the day. Not only does he come off like a complete jerk, he has no message for the voters. It is still early in the election cycle, but he needs to regroup and try to put a consistent message together. Otherwise he is going to get defined by his opponent. A position that will be very difficult to overcome.

Posted by brians at 3:29 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)