Frustration: Or How Not To Get In Touch With Your Elected Official

Back in the day, it used to be so easy; you called your US official, a bright young staffer came on the line, you made your request, and you usually got an answer--and quickly.
Not so in these days of so MANY communication devices.

Let me explain:

Last week the US Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report on Russian interference in our 2016 elections, including reports on such interference in EVERY state, including Kentucky. I have written frequently about the need for better election security in Kentucky, so here was, hopefully, some facts on the matter I could cite in a blog urging local and state representatives to get on the ball.

So I decided to get a copy of the report:

First stop, my phone directory, to look up the district office number for Senator Paul. Putting on my reading glasses, because the type is small, I finally located his office number and called it.  That number no longer works, because Paul has given up his office in Lexington. (Thanks, Senator) So I called his Washington main office. Got a recorded voice asking me to leave a recording and they would get back to me. I needed to have a more definite report, because my blog deadline was already overdue, so I declined. 

Then I called his one state office in Bowling Green, where a sweet young thing said they couldn't tell me whether they could get me a copy or not, but if I called their field representative in LEXINGTON, she might be able to help. Got her number (somewhat incorrect) and after 2 attempts  on a very bad phone line left a message; and am awaiting a reply.

But, deadlines loom, so I tried calling the LEXINGTON office of Sen. McConnell. Got an instant recording saying if I heard that everyone was busy talking to someone else, so please leave a message. Now I remembered all those stories about how tough it is to reach the Senator; hadn't realized it also applied to his local office as well. (Not to be negative, but does anyone get through on their first try?) I declined to leave a recording.


Now, I went back to the current phone directory to look up the office of Congressman Andy Barr. Most helpful, they had a listing for our local congressman; but his name was Ben Chandler. (Lost to Barr six years ago, still UNcorrected) No number also.

Now, off to the internet, googling Barr. Not much more helpful, a lot of listing for him, but NOT his local offices, so I went to his DC listing, and there was the Lexington listing as well. Called the local number. Very helpful young man answered, for the first time, actually took down my request for a copy of the Senate report and asked me to hold while he checked. A minute or so later he came back on..sorry to tell me  they could NOT help me get a copy of any Senate report, apparently only House reports. I thanked him for his efforts.

I can tell you from many years of political reporting this type of runaround would not have happened "back in the day." What's going on here with requests from constituents?
As of now I have resolved not to call the offices of that Senate committee in DC or the GPO (Govt. Printing Office) to get this report. Maybe the lady field representative of Paul's will come through in time.

But I still don't have a topic for this week's blog.
 
Or, do I???

I'm just sayin'...

Special Session, Special Counsel, Special Numbers

Gov. Bevin is right to lay the stress he has on fixing our incredible pension crisis, although perhaps not to the exclusion of some lesser state problems; and of course reasonable people can argue over the best ways out. The crisis, decades in the making by lack of attention by many governors and the legislature, will not be solved overnight. His basic reforms, passed at the regular session show that. As they wend their way thru a major court test, he had to call a special session to correct some of the problems of the first bill...that's  now done..probably to face another court test filed by his fall opponent, Attorney-General Andy Beshear. We can only hope the courts will decide by the time of the November election, so voters may have the chance to make comparisons, or surely by the time of the regular session in January when other changes will most likely have to be made, and we may know if the corrections made in this week's special session are, in fact, corrections. Stay tuned, it's a complicated mess, but one that must be faced.


Special Counsel Robert Mueller tried to stress several things at his marathon testimonies this week. Let's hope at least one penetrated the skulls of legislators--and citizens: The Russians DID try to influence our 2016 presidential elections, and are at it AGAIN. And they are being joined, he feels, by China and Iran, maybe more. America is also NOT ready to meet those election challenges, either nationally or locally. Congress MUST face up to this but it is also a challenge that needs to be met in Lexington and Frankfort. Example: Lexington's election machines do NOT have a paper record and are thus subject to tampering that may not be discernible. And for all the political arguments over Sec. of State Grimes' powers, our state election process is not secure either. The next legislative session is probably our last chance to get our voting house in order and secure, if it isn't already too late. We need to thank Counsel Mueller for this crucial reminder.


Ever since Dr. David Roselle, an eminent mathematician, left the UK presidency, our flagship institution has suffered from some "number" problems. For the second time, UK has admitted many more students than it has rooms; despite years of cookie-cutter construction of such rooms through contracts with private builders, not itself. Can't UK count? Apparently not--and parents and citizens paying for UK need to know more about why not.  Meanwhile it has been reported that Dr. Eli Capilouto, our current UK president, is the 4th highest paid college head for public universities, over a million dollars a year in pay, benefits, etc. He's a good man, is doing well basically, but somehow this just doesn't seem right. We are not North Carolina, or Texas, or Michigan, or California and our financial resources are much more strained. Between "lifetime" contracts for a coach and this report, our priorities seem to be out of whack. Next thing you know, UK supporters will be yelling "We're number one!"

I'm just sayin'...

Kentucky Politics: Rumors And Reports

For some time there have been rumors that Democrat Amy McGrath, the ex-Marine jet pilot who ran a good but losing race against Congressman Andy Barr, would announce her candidacy for the US Senate seat now held by Mitch McConnell. Then came reports, from a New York talk show not a Kentucky news source, that someone named Amy McGrath was doing just that. Only it couldn't have been the old Amy McGrath.

This new Democratic candidate, unlike the first who had proclaimed her progressive beliefs, endorsed some of the Trump policies. Arrgh! And to make matters worse, this new McGrath said if she had been in Mitch's seat she would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanagh to the Supreme Court. Well, the national sisterhood jumped all over her on that, along with about everyone else--including the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer (who supposedly had urged the old McGrath to run,) and soon whoever this new McGrath was took it all back. Double arrgh!

So now who is this person? And who else, real or otherwise, might seek to oppose Mitch, who definitely needs opposing, even in his own party--an unlikely event.
Let us wait and see while other Dems consider jumping into what all know would be a very tough, uphill race. The state's lone Democrat in Congress, John Yarmuth of Louisville, would be a good one. A certain lawyer, masquerading as a sports figure, might be another, as would House minority leader Rocky Adkins, though he doesn't seem so inclined.

But meanwhile we have to consider what Dems do with a candidate who won many's affections by her straight talk running for Congress, and who now seems willing to throw all that political gold away trying to be all things to all people just to win.
Don't know who this new Amy McGrath really is, but her party, and Kentucky, could use the old---and real---one back.


I'm just sayin'...

I Smell A Rat, A Judicial Rat

And at the Supreme Court, too.

Its decision last week NOT to make a decision in 2 cases (more later) of obvious partisan gerrymandering (drawing election district lines to favor your party alone, screwing the other party and all voters) smells to high heaven of the worse kind of decision making by the high court (as bad as the decision on Florida voting ---more later--that may have cost Al Gore the presidency.)

The Chief Justice asked a legitimate question; how much partisan gerrymandering is OK? Where can the lines be drawn? And then totally surrendered his job of deciding such questions and gave up but, of course, by a 5-4 vote including the 2 new conservative judges. The court is there to make such decisions, tough or not. It has done so many times before. In the famous Florida vote case it was ultimately ruling on those famous "hanging chads," remember? Was this a Gore vote or a Bush vote? Hold the chad up to the light and try to ascertain the voter's intention. It did just that in its decision. Only the most important and powerful job in the world was at stake, yet somehow, it was able to make a decision.

But not in the current gerrymandering cases. I smell a rat.  The court had before it cases from 2 states, one where the GOP dominated state legislature had redrawn previous election district lines to favor them, and a second case where a Democrat controlled state legislature had done the same thing. What a great opportunity to reaffirm an old American tradition of one person, one vote, and say: a pox on both your houses! This is wrong no matter who does it, and when.

But this Golden Opportunity was too much for the Republican dominated Supreme Court to pass up. Indeed, I strongly suspect it waited for two cases from two states, each controlled by one party, to opt out and say  "it's too tough for us to decide." Judges  have been deciding tough cases ever since King Solomon and the 2 mothers who each wanted the same baby. But this time, with 2 cases where the gerrymandering was so apparent (and so partisan) the court gave up.

Could it be because the court knows the GOP controls many more state legislatures right now than Democrats? And with a new census but a few years away, NOT deciding gives the GOP even more of a chance to draw lines to favor it, on the state level and on the federal level (read, more gridlock in Washington.)

But the court can say, well, we had 2 cases, one from each party, that were blatantly corrupt, but we just couldn't decide where to draw the line without jepordizing FUTURE  cases that MIGHT come before us.  Meadow Muffins!

Is there any way we can garnish their salaries for failure to do the job to which they were NOT elected?


I'm just sayin'...