Okay, look. I have now received umpteen comments on my blog obviously from Harper campaign people pushing their candidate. In most cases, the comments have nothing to do with the post. So from here on out, I'm just going to consider them Spam, and they will all be rejected.
The Harper campaign needs to find some other blog to criticize Fletcher and Northup. The new policy is not a commentary on Fletcher or Northup--or Harper. But this is getting tiresome and I would rather not have these comments cluttering my e-mail.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
We're quoted in Medical News Today
I was quoted in Medical News Today on the HPV vaccination mandate here.
Response to Courier
The Louisville Courier-Journal issued another in what seems a regular series of attacks on The Family Foundation in general (and me in particular). Today's editorial can be found here. The editorial was apparently written in response to two stories that ran last Friday in which I was quoted, one in the Lexington Herald-Leader, and one in the Courier-Journal.
Here is a draft response to today's editorial:
In a recent editorial, the CJ wrote in support of Kathy Stein’s bill calling for the forced vaccination of girls as young as 9 year-old with a vaccine that has not even been tested on the age group on which it is to be used. Then, not content with supporting the transformation of school children into medical guinea pigs (and trampling on parental rights in the process), it looked around for someone opposed to the scheme whose position it could mischaracterize.
Here is a draft response to today's editorial:
In a recent editorial, the CJ wrote in support of Kathy Stein’s bill calling for the forced vaccination of girls as young as 9 year-old with a vaccine that has not even been tested on the age group on which it is to be used. Then, not content with supporting the transformation of school children into medical guinea pigs (and trampling on parental rights in the process), it looked around for someone opposed to the scheme whose position it could mischaracterize.
According to the editorial, we said that little girls would interpret mandatory middle school HPV vaccinations "as permission to sleep with their boyfriends." Obviously it would be a stretch to assume that accuracy was important to the CJ, but we should point that we didn’t say that.
Until your reporter called us, we hadn’t even made a public statement on the issue, but we were asked for our opinion and we gave it. That was apparently taken as license to portray us as conducting some kind of campaign against Gardasil, a drug whose use we support.
However, the Vioxx debacle should be a warning to those who actually care about people that just because the drug companies have marketed a drug and packaged it with promises does not guarantee it is safe.
Maybe someone could develop a vaccine that would prevent journalists from supporting bad legislation and then lying about people who disagree with it. When they do, we’ll be there to support making it mandatory.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Quoted in the Center for Disease Control's "Prevention News Update" today
I'm quoted in the Center for Disease Control's "Prevention News Update" today here.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Quoted in the Cincinnati Inquirer today
I was quoted about mandatory HPV vaccinations in the Cincinnati Inquirer today here.
Press coverage of Stein nomination--and the tangled web Stumbo has woven for himself
I was quoted in both the state's largest newspapers today on the Stein nomination. Both the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader ran front page stories on the House committee chair appointments, the only controversial one being Stein. Both stories were well done and fair, although the Courier's story focused on the possibility of resurrecting the issue of same-sex marriage, an issue which is as politically dead as an issue can be. The Marriage Amendment passed two years ago with the support of 75 percent of voters.
Quod est demonstrandum.
I have a feeling that the Courier reporter may be new and not entirely familiar with the state's recent history on this issue. But she did report my comment that Stein's views on the issue are irrelevant, given the passage of the amendment.
Stein can certainly take comfort in gaining a key legislative position, but Democratic leadership cannot afford to be smug about the events of this week. From about Tuesday morning when the controversy over this appointment hit the papers, they had to realize that they were faced with a dilemma: either change course and look like they were caving in to conservative interests or make the appointment and pay the potential political consequences. They chose the latter. But neither outcome could be considered particularly appealing for them.
By the way, there is one very interesting potential irony here. If it is true, as some think, that Jody Richards will announce for governor next week, and that, as is also rumored, his running mate is Greg Stumbo, Stumbo could very well have shot himself in the foot with his involvement in events this week.
As I pointed out, Stumbo was involved in the election of Charlie Hoffman to the caucus chairman position in the House. And that victory secured Stein's appointment because it resulted in the ousting of Damron, a Stein opponent. But Stein's appointment will very definitely hurt Richard's candidacy, since he is trying to run to the right of the rest of the field. I was quoted to this effect in today's Herald-Leader. And any damage to Richard's candidacy for governor is damage to Stumbo's candidacy for lieutenant governor since they would be running on the same ticket.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Quod est demonstrandum.
I have a feeling that the Courier reporter may be new and not entirely familiar with the state's recent history on this issue. But she did report my comment that Stein's views on the issue are irrelevant, given the passage of the amendment.
Stein can certainly take comfort in gaining a key legislative position, but Democratic leadership cannot afford to be smug about the events of this week. From about Tuesday morning when the controversy over this appointment hit the papers, they had to realize that they were faced with a dilemma: either change course and look like they were caving in to conservative interests or make the appointment and pay the potential political consequences. They chose the latter. But neither outcome could be considered particularly appealing for them.
By the way, there is one very interesting potential irony here. If it is true, as some think, that Jody Richards will announce for governor next week, and that, as is also rumored, his running mate is Greg Stumbo, Stumbo could very well have shot himself in the foot with his involvement in events this week.
As I pointed out, Stumbo was involved in the election of Charlie Hoffman to the caucus chairman position in the House. And that victory secured Stein's appointment because it resulted in the ousting of Damron, a Stein opponent. But Stein's appointment will very definitely hurt Richard's candidacy, since he is trying to run to the right of the rest of the field. I was quoted to this effect in today's Herald-Leader. And any damage to Richard's candidacy for governor is damage to Stumbo's candidacy for lieutenant governor since they would be running on the same ticket.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Anatomy of a takeover
Today's appointment of Kathy Stein (D-Lexington) caps off a series of successful moves by liberal forces to take over the House of Representatives. In just one week, a loose coalition of political factions, including pro-labor forces, casino gambling advocates, and socially liberal partisans managed a behind the scenes campaign that effectively puts the Kentucky House on the extreme left of the political spectrum.
It is not even clear that the individual conspirators knew of the others' involvement in the events that unseated Bob Damron (D-Nicholasville), and placed Stein, the House's most liberal member, at the head of the powerful House Judiciary Committee.
The roster of conspirators
But a few things are clear. For one thing, Greg Stumbo was involved, apparently calling to secure the votes of several members for Charlie Hoffman (D-Georgetown) for caucus chair, Damron's former position. Jerry Lundergan is also said to have been a force behind the changes, although it is unclear exactly how that manifested itself, other than through the presence of Jonathan Hurst, a Lundergan aide working within the caucus. Members also received calls from labor representatives in their districts to vote for Hoffman.
The question is what was in it for Stumbo and Lundergan. The only apparent thing is that both are in favor of casino gambling. For Lundergan, casino interests are an important potential source of campaign dollars. During the last session, anti-gambling forces had a lock on the House. Those in opposition to letting a bill out of committee without assurances from the Senate that it would be dealt with there apparently included Jody Richards (D-Bowling Green), Damron, and, possibly, former whip Joe Barrows of Versailles. Where Adkins was is less clear although it is thought by some observers that he was of the same opinion.
Larry Clark (D-Louisville), the immediate beneficiary of the House changes (and possibly the ringleader of the whole thing) has been champing at the bit to put a casino bill out of the House, but with the former leadership was clearly unable to do so. How to deal with the problem? The first move was to get Rob Wilkey (D-Bowling Green) into the position of whip. The second thing to do was to remove the impediment of Damron, who was already on thin ice with some other members because of his support of Gov. Fletcher's tax modernization plan in 2004, and his association with political consultant Ray Stewart. Damron had been an outspoken opponent within the caucus on the casino issue.
Clark apparently put his labor coalition to work on both the Damron/Hoffman race (Clark is seen to control Hoffman) and on the race between Wilkey and John Will Stacy (D-West Liberty), another potential threat to casino interests. He was successful on both counts. As David Williams pointed out Thursday night, the House is now fully in control of labor.
Now, Larry Clark controls the House Democratic Caucus, and, therefore, the House agenda. The only independent conservatives left in leadership are Richards and Adkins, and they are two against three. Clark is at the locus of all these forces: he is obviously the chief labor advocate in the legislature; he's the leader the pro-casino Jefferson County contingent; and he's a social liberal. He is probably one of the three or four people who was fully aware of who all the conspirators were.
The impact on the gambling issue
When a casino bill appears in 2008 (or if one appears this session), watch for it to move quickly out of the House and over to the Senate. Does this mean casino legislation stands a better chance? Probably. But there is not necessarily any overall incentive for the legislature as a whole to produce a bill. For the Democrats who control the House, the incentives do not necessarily extend beyond showing casinos (and groups like KEEP) that they are fighting for them, and are therefore worthy of their financial support. This keeps money flowing in to the Democratic coffers. But there are others outside the legislature (and Stumbo is one of them) to whom posturing is not going to be enough--and that is significant when you consider that Stumbo is looking more and more like a statewide candidate in 2007.
On the Senate side, President David Williams and the Republican Senate leadership clearly calculated in 2006 that opposing casinos is popular with the activists who support them--and it is a reason that can be given to anti-gambling advocates to keep Williams in the Senate presidency: because as long as he is there, they are told, gambling will never pass. How the casino forces deal with Williams is the biggest question. And, unfortunately for them, Williams is the best strategic political thinker in the General Assembly.
The takeover obviously played a significant role in the Stein nomination. With Damron in leadership, there were three likely votes against her for the Judiciary slot, particularly after the controversy of this week: Damron, Richards, and Adkins. My comments in the media apparently resulted in quite a few calls and e-mails to House members. There was no organized opposition to her nomination, only a press release and media interviews. But there was a point, probably on Wednesday, when her nomination for judiciary was in doubt. The doubt, however, was dispelled with the leadership changes.
There is some speculation that Stein's allies worked to unseat Damron as well. It would make sense for them to have done so with the one question being the advantage to the casinos of a Hoffman win. Stein is opposed to casinos. But that concern would probably have taken a back seat to concerns over her judiciary chairmanship.
One interesting aspect of all this is the non-role of House Republican leadership. This is something they should have been making hay with, but didn't. Obviously, the controversy over Stein and the changes in leadership strengthen any case they might make that they are more representative of Kentuckians than the Democrats. The question is, will they make the case? So far, they have been deadly silent. One of the reasons may be that Jeff Hoover (R-Jamestown) is said to be a personal friend of Stein. He may simply have been reticent to criticize a friend. Another could be that I was making the case for them, and they could simply sit back and reap the benefits later. But there are some people (such as myself) who think that this non-confrontational approach is par for the course with House Republicans over the last few sessions.
How they plan to win elections without highlighting their differences with the Democrats is a mystery. Maybe the victory of Stan Lee (R-Lexington), a staunch conservative, will provide some much needed backbone in the caucus.
Winners and Losers
The beneficiaries of this week's events:
© Martin Cothran 2007. All rights reserved. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
It is not even clear that the individual conspirators knew of the others' involvement in the events that unseated Bob Damron (D-Nicholasville), and placed Stein, the House's most liberal member, at the head of the powerful House Judiciary Committee.
The roster of conspirators
But a few things are clear. For one thing, Greg Stumbo was involved, apparently calling to secure the votes of several members for Charlie Hoffman (D-Georgetown) for caucus chair, Damron's former position. Jerry Lundergan is also said to have been a force behind the changes, although it is unclear exactly how that manifested itself, other than through the presence of Jonathan Hurst, a Lundergan aide working within the caucus. Members also received calls from labor representatives in their districts to vote for Hoffman.
The question is what was in it for Stumbo and Lundergan. The only apparent thing is that both are in favor of casino gambling. For Lundergan, casino interests are an important potential source of campaign dollars. During the last session, anti-gambling forces had a lock on the House. Those in opposition to letting a bill out of committee without assurances from the Senate that it would be dealt with there apparently included Jody Richards (D-Bowling Green), Damron, and, possibly, former whip Joe Barrows of Versailles. Where Adkins was is less clear although it is thought by some observers that he was of the same opinion.
Larry Clark (D-Louisville), the immediate beneficiary of the House changes (and possibly the ringleader of the whole thing) has been champing at the bit to put a casino bill out of the House, but with the former leadership was clearly unable to do so. How to deal with the problem? The first move was to get Rob Wilkey (D-Bowling Green) into the position of whip. The second thing to do was to remove the impediment of Damron, who was already on thin ice with some other members because of his support of Gov. Fletcher's tax modernization plan in 2004, and his association with political consultant Ray Stewart. Damron had been an outspoken opponent within the caucus on the casino issue.
Clark apparently put his labor coalition to work on both the Damron/Hoffman race (Clark is seen to control Hoffman) and on the race between Wilkey and John Will Stacy (D-West Liberty), another potential threat to casino interests. He was successful on both counts. As David Williams pointed out Thursday night, the House is now fully in control of labor.
Now, Larry Clark controls the House Democratic Caucus, and, therefore, the House agenda. The only independent conservatives left in leadership are Richards and Adkins, and they are two against three. Clark is at the locus of all these forces: he is obviously the chief labor advocate in the legislature; he's the leader the pro-casino Jefferson County contingent; and he's a social liberal. He is probably one of the three or four people who was fully aware of who all the conspirators were.
The impact on the gambling issue
When a casino bill appears in 2008 (or if one appears this session), watch for it to move quickly out of the House and over to the Senate. Does this mean casino legislation stands a better chance? Probably. But there is not necessarily any overall incentive for the legislature as a whole to produce a bill. For the Democrats who control the House, the incentives do not necessarily extend beyond showing casinos (and groups like KEEP) that they are fighting for them, and are therefore worthy of their financial support. This keeps money flowing in to the Democratic coffers. But there are others outside the legislature (and Stumbo is one of them) to whom posturing is not going to be enough--and that is significant when you consider that Stumbo is looking more and more like a statewide candidate in 2007.
On the Senate side, President David Williams and the Republican Senate leadership clearly calculated in 2006 that opposing casinos is popular with the activists who support them--and it is a reason that can be given to anti-gambling advocates to keep Williams in the Senate presidency: because as long as he is there, they are told, gambling will never pass. How the casino forces deal with Williams is the biggest question. And, unfortunately for them, Williams is the best strategic political thinker in the General Assembly.
The takeover obviously played a significant role in the Stein nomination. With Damron in leadership, there were three likely votes against her for the Judiciary slot, particularly after the controversy of this week: Damron, Richards, and Adkins. My comments in the media apparently resulted in quite a few calls and e-mails to House members. There was no organized opposition to her nomination, only a press release and media interviews. But there was a point, probably on Wednesday, when her nomination for judiciary was in doubt. The doubt, however, was dispelled with the leadership changes.
There is some speculation that Stein's allies worked to unseat Damron as well. It would make sense for them to have done so with the one question being the advantage to the casinos of a Hoffman win. Stein is opposed to casinos. But that concern would probably have taken a back seat to concerns over her judiciary chairmanship.
One interesting aspect of all this is the non-role of House Republican leadership. This is something they should have been making hay with, but didn't. Obviously, the controversy over Stein and the changes in leadership strengthen any case they might make that they are more representative of Kentuckians than the Democrats. The question is, will they make the case? So far, they have been deadly silent. One of the reasons may be that Jeff Hoover (R-Jamestown) is said to be a personal friend of Stein. He may simply have been reticent to criticize a friend. Another could be that I was making the case for them, and they could simply sit back and reap the benefits later. But there are some people (such as myself) who think that this non-confrontational approach is par for the course with House Republicans over the last few sessions.
How they plan to win elections without highlighting their differences with the Democrats is a mystery. Maybe the victory of Stan Lee (R-Lexington), a staunch conservative, will provide some much needed backbone in the caucus.
Winners and Losers
The beneficiaries of this week's events:
- Larry Clark: He now controls House leadership.
- Jerry Lundergan: He is now in the driver's seat on the gambling issue and will be able to attract more casino money.
- Kathy Stein: The changes assured her Judiciary appointment.
- Charlie Hoffman: He got a seat in leadership, but he owes it to Larry Clark, his new patron.
- The casino industry: They stand to reap the benefits next session.
- Greg Stumbo: I'm not sure why, but he thinks he is, which means he probably is.
- Labor: They now control the House Democratic caucus.
- Social liberals: They not only directly control the House Judiciary Committee, but leadership as well.
- House Republicans: With the Stein appointment, they now have the evidence that the House is controlled by San Francisco Democrats. If, they use it, they may be able to reap the benefits in the next election.
- Senate President David Williams: Williams now has a bigger target to shoot at.
- Jody Richards: He and Adkins are now isolated. Furthermore, after he announces for governor next week, he's going to have to explain to all those voters--to whom he wants to appear as a conservative--how the House, under his speakership, put the chamber's most liberal member at the head of judiciary.
- Rock Adkins: He has only Richards now to keep him company.
- Bob Damron: He lost is seat in leadership.
- Conservative Democratic House members: They are now completely out of power.
- Brent Yonts: He lost the Judiciary Committee chairmanship to Kathy.
© Martin Cothran 2007. All rights reserved. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
HPV Vaccination debate at Kaisernetwork.org
We were mentioned in an article here on Kaisernetwork.org today on the growing debate over mandatory HPV Vaccinations.
HPV Vaccination article in Herald-Leader
I was quoted in an article on the HPV vaccination today in the Lexington Herald-Leader here.
HPV Vaccination mention on WHAS-11
I was quoted in a piece on the HPV Vaccination issue today on WHAS-11 here.
A good sport
I called Kathy Stein this morning to make sure she had not taken our opposition to her appointment as judiciary chair personally. I pointed out that we had said repeatedly that we considered her a very capable advocate for her positions and that her integrity was never in question (see various comments on this below). I pointed out to her that our problem with with House leadership, not with her personally.
She very nicely said she hadn't taken it personally and knew exactly where we were coming from, and not to worry about it. She also said she continued to oppose casino gambling, and expected that we would be working with her on that and other issues.
As I said publicly several times, I have a whole lot more personal respect for Stein for her candor on where she stands than I do for those politicians who deny what they really believe--or for those who call themselves one thing when they are really something else. It just goes to show you can disagree with someone and not be hateful about it.
She's a good sport, and deserves credit for it.
She very nicely said she hadn't taken it personally and knew exactly where we were coming from, and not to worry about it. She also said she continued to oppose casino gambling, and expected that we would be working with her on that and other issues.
As I said publicly several times, I have a whole lot more personal respect for Stein for her candor on where she stands than I do for those politicians who deny what they really believe--or for those who call themselves one thing when they are really something else. It just goes to show you can disagree with someone and not be hateful about it.
She's a good sport, and deserves credit for it.
Nancy Pelosi would be proud
January 5, 2007
Phone: 859-329-1919
LEXINGTON, KY. —“Nancy Pelosi would be proud of this selection,” said a spokesman for a state family advocacy group after it was announced that the Kentucky House of Representative’s most liberal member was appointed to head a committee that handles sensitive social issues. “Apparently, the San Francisco Democrats are now firmly in control of one chamber of our legislature,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky.
Stein’s appointment comes after leadership changes in the House Democratic caucus, which voted Rep. Bob Damron (D-Nicholasville), a conservative, out of his post as caucus chairman, and replaced him with the more liberal Charlie Hoffman (D-Georgetown).
“It’s too bad Barney Frank was not available for the spot,” said Cothran, referring to the liberal Congressman from Massachusetts.
“Because the judiciary committee deals with fairly divisive social issues, we thought it was important to have a chairman that was not out of the mainstream on political and social issues. There are plenty of moderate Democrats who they could have made chairman of that committee. All we were saying was that we thought the Democratic leadership in the House would be doing itself a favor if it put somebody other than a radical partisan in the position.”
Cothran said the Foundation was not criticizing Kathy Stein. “Kathy Stein has the right to support abortion on demand. She has a right to advocate special rights for homosexuals, and to support gun control, and to introduce bills mandating the forced vaccination of 9 year-old girls. She has the right to do all those things, and she does them in an articulate and effective way. We just thought that maybe someone who had an open mind would be a good pick. But that is clearly not the view of House Democratic leadership.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)