Kentucky, Lunsford and How to unite this party
by Kentucky Dem
Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM PDT

Ok, so the primary for Kentucky has been over for a few weeks now. In order to explain everything I must make a statement first. I did not like Bruce Lunsford. There I said it. Of the three major contenders I found him the least "correct" of them. I was adamant in my desire for someone else.

I didn't get lucky. A lot of Kentucky Democrats didn't get their guy. A lot of Democrats did get their guy. This campaign was ugly. Maybe not as publicly ugly as the presidential primary has been, but it was ugly none the less. TV ads news articles and active work of the camps destroying each other.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

Ok, so the primary for Kentucky has been over for a few weeks now. In order to explain everything I must make a statement first. I did not like Bruce Lunsford. There I said it. Of the three major contenders I found him the least “correct” of them. I was adamant in my desire for someone else. I didn't get lucky. A lot of Kentucky Democrats didn't get their guy. A lot of Democrats did get their guy. This campaign was ugly. Maybe not as publicly ugly as the presidential primary has been, but it was ugly none the less. TV ads news articles and active work of the camps destroying each other.


But what happened the day after the primary?
They
Acted Maturely.

They all came together. They acknowledged that the problem was not one another, it was Mitch McConnel. A wet yellow dog is better than Mitch, which means Bruce is leaps and bounds better than Mitch.

But it was just the candidates doing the silly politics stuff right? Some Democrats still dislike Bruce and wont vote for him right?

WRONG

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Kentucky Senate race shows Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford with a five percentage point lead over long-time Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. The poll, conducted just two days after Lunsford won the Democratic nomination, shows the challenger with 49% of the vote while McConnell earns 44%. - Source: Rasmussen

Look at that. The supporters of the candidates acted maturely and followed their candidates lead and decided to support Bruce Lunsford. Why? Because Bruce is better than Mitch. It is that simple.

So I humbly submit to my fellow Democrats, that all of us across the country need to take a lesson from our Kentucky Senatorial Democrats and support our nominee (once said person has reached the necessary delegate count) so that we can triumph over McCain.

I admit I was hesitant in Kentucky. This morning I looked at Lunsford's website and cringe for a moment. Then I read his issues page. I didn't agree 100% on every issue. But I guarantee you I agreed 90% with every issue. And I know for a fact I agree 10% with Mitch, and thats being generous.

I encourage you all to take a look at the Democratic Nominee's policy stand points. And then if you feel really adventurous go look at McCain's and look at the stark difference. Mature and intelligent people will make the decision of who to support in the general election based on what is in their best interest. Kentuckians have done this, so now I ask you to.

We need a better RBC. & a direct response to Ickes' contention.

UPDATE OK So I have seen where people have been reading this but might believe that I think the RBC was wrong. I fully support the RBC decision today and think they were justified.

Before you read further please understand I am not trying to raise the ire of anyone. I simply want to acknowledge where we were successful and where we were not, today, and what we can do about them. I like to think I am a calm and measure political person.

No we don't need better people on the RBC. We simply need to redefine what it does. Frankly I am proud of those 30 members for trying their absolute best to do the right and correct thing according to the rules and bylaws.

Some might say that this was a drastic miscarriage of justice. And that might in fact be true. But it deserves some thought as to why it might be and why I hold that it was, in fact, not a miscarriage. Follow me below the fold and hear me out.
UPDATE OK So I have seen where people have been reading this but might believe that I think the RBC was wrong. I fully support the RBC decision today and think they were justified. Before you read further please understand I am not trying to raise the ire of anyone. I simply want to acknowledge where we were successful and where we were not, today, and what we can do about them. I like to think I am a calm and measure political person. No we don't need better people on the RBC. We simply need to redefine what it does. Frankly I am proud of those 30 members for trying their absolute best to do the right and correct thing according to the rules and bylaws. Some might say that this was a drastic miscarriage of justice. And that might in fact be true. But it deserves some thought as to why it might be and why I hold that it was, in fact, not a miscarriage. Follow me below the fold and hear me out.

First lets consider Florida. The Ausman plan regarding the pledged delegates was justified by rules very clearly. The RBC has the ability to deduct 50% percent from the voting strength of a states pledged delegates. This proposal was met with acceptance, probably grudgingly, by all parties involved. I believe this was a great decision and for an unusual reason

It set a good precedent. First, that if you go out of line or break the rule we will punish your voting power. Second, this RBC has determined what is meant by 50% and we will never have to hear about that silly stuff ever again.

As for splitting the SuperDelegates in half...well that is trickier and I will address it later.

Alright now Michigan. First, I want to congratulate the Chair of the MDP for being the most sensible person in the entire room. Am I the only person that thinks we was the most calm, honest, and measured individual in the room?

Ickes contests that the ruling of the RBC was a sham and a miscarriage. Well he is correct in my mind but only on one precondition. The rules hold, and I wish I had a copy, that uncommitted is a viable choice that may result in the creation of uncommitted pledged delegates. So if you believe that the Michigan vote was valid then it very validly follows that the decision to give uncommitted delegates to a candidate would be invalid under the rules.

But Ickes is wrong.
The problem we do have is that it is not clear that Ickes is wrong. I will address that later. What I understand to have happened is that MI did not submit a legitament plan for delegate selection as was required by the DNC. Therefore the system used would be considered invalid not because Obama wasn't on the ballot but because it was not appropraitely sanctioned by the DNC as 48 other election plans were. It wasn't about MI being an illegitament election. It wasn't about 'dissenfranchising'. It was about the MDP failing(arguably by no fault of their own) to submit an appropriate delegate selection plan. So what does this mean? Well it means that the election was not a tool that could be used to determine the delegates. So what happened today? In my mind the MDP brought forward a belated delegate selection plan.

"Whoops we screwed up. We are sorry. Here is a retroactive system for determining our delegates based on all the data available and social scientific theories."

Was it perfect? By no stretch of the imagination is it perfect. Does the RBC have the authority? As I understand it, it does. The RBC is able to review the delegate selection processes and accept or reject them. What we saw today was effectively the acceptance of the MDP delegate selection program....about 2 years late.

But Kentucky Dem, what about the Supers? I really wish I had a copy of the Rules and Bylaws. But the way that I feel about it is that since the RBC had the ability to shorten the authority of a pledged delegate to .5 it would have th authority to do so with Supers.

Why we need a better RBC.
Guys and Gals I am going to be honest. 2 years ago I was at the RBC meeting where they discussed who would go first. Frankly it bored the crap out of me ( I was young and didn't understand the implications, forgive me). But I have heard Dean and others speak to this system. I believe in letting a few states go first then all the rest. Edwards and Obama would not have been viable candidates under a everyone at once system.

Now that I have said that... The RBC needs to be more clearly defined in its authorities and what the rules and bylaws are. What the RBC did today was effectively create case law. They provided rules that, barring some change to the rules, will be followed for years to come. I think that no one saw this coming 2 years ago. Should the RBC have rules for every possible situation? God no. But we do need to put in there that the are the arbitrating body for when these disputes arise and that they are empowered to make decision base on our rules, bylaws, AND THE SPIRIT OF OUR PARTY.

Other thoughts,
1.I'm a bit frustrated with this FL and MI theory that "we have been punished enough" because we didn't get to have the candidates come meet the voters like we always do. I have never met a presidential candidate in my lifetime. Just because you get special notice and care every time doesnt mean you are being unfairly treated by not getting it this time. Also, I completely understand, and defer to, the fact that the FL and MI presenters were doing there absolutely best to argue on their behalf.
2.Donna Brazile seems pretty impressive to me. I appreciate honesty.
3.I think I met the co-chairman at that same convention I was at. I found him to a brilliant and polite man. Both of them tried desperately to maintain decorum.
4.My campaign for delegate status has started running. Looks like the delegate for Obama from my district must be female, so I think im SOL. Oh well, I will still campaign. I want to get to know people in my district anyway.

On becoming an Obama pledged Delegate: KENTUCKY

Hey everyone,

I am starting to get the hang of this blogging stuff so here comes another one. A few days ago I decided to run for the position of pledged delegate for Senator Obama in the lovely Commonwealth of Kentucky.Thus far it has been an interesting experience. Kentucky, unlike many other states, chooses it's delegates through a two stage convention system. Both conventions I have to miss on account of summer law classes and a close friends wedding. But I am still fighting diligently. I have begun by emailing my newly elected county chairwoman and presenting a detailed history of my political activities.I know hardly anyone here is in my district or much less cares about this peculiar process but I thought I aughta share.

I hope you all will help me get elected to a pledged delegate position for the Democratic Convention in August. The other day I faxed in my formal application to be a pledged delegate representing the state of Kentucky at the DNC. As some of you know I already plan to attend the convention as an executive of the NDLSC.The thing is, I want to go and vote. Kentucky needs more youth activity in it's politics. We have been stuck in a good-ol-boy system for quite some time. We have been fortunate that many of those that have benefited from this system have been good Kentuckians and democrats. But we will not feel the benefit of the broad sweeping democratic wave that will come in November unless we motivate the youth of Kentucky who have long been orphaned from the system.

I have pledged my support for Senator Obama. The decision to do this certainly wasn't easy. All of us being voters know that it is very difficult to decide, especially with two very strong democratic candidates. The dillema I have is that if I achieve delegate status I am publicly endorsing someone, not that I have any sway or anything, and that is something out in the open and on record. I am sure we all remember how after Bush turned out to be a fool so many people claimed to have not voted for him but may very well have. You don't get the benefit of secrecy in being a delegate.

Why did I chose Obama?
I saw three strong candidates for president this year. After Edwards dropped out I became one of those wayward souls of democratic politics. One those highly-active energetic individuals that loved the party and everything he has seen it do. I desperately wanted to be involved. I drove myself headlong into organizations at school and elsewhere. But I still felt like the odd-man out. Everyone else had a horse in the race. I did my research. I found Hillary's healthcare plan to be stronger, but that became a bit of non-issue after meeting Congressman Conyers and his assurance to us that He will push through a strong and fully covering healthcare plan come hell or highwater. It really came down to three things for me. Education, attitude and the courts. Education is something I am deeply passionate about and very aware of it's problems. I attended public grade school and middleschool. As I look back now I know that those building were dilapidated and that the system lacked the funding it needed. The teachers though, they never lacked heart. They loved what they did and they would do anything to help us, even the most delinquent of us. I benefited from my families hard work and attended a private catholic highschool in Louisville. The difference alarming. I truly treasure my time at this institution and believe it is one of the reasons I have been blessed with the opportunities I have had. The problem though Is that I should not have received those benefits alone. Why is it that we have such low retention rates? Why is it that our schools are falling apart? Why is it that our teachers have to eek out a meager existence? Perhaps some of it is a social problem but most of it is institutional and governmental. I believe that Senator Obama presents the strongest plan on education and that he will work to improve our public school system. Because, people, this is where it starts. The economy, jobs, everything, it all comes back to education.

I find Senator Obama's attitude amazing. Just think about what this man has overcome. If you had asked him 20 years ago if he was going to be president or have this kind of impact on America he would have thought you a madman. But he kept the right attitude and did the right things. He lived the American dream. I believe that he has the ability, and the desire, to unite the new generation of voters and build a democratic majority that will not enact liberal or conservative ideas, but intelligent, measured, well thought out decision that will benefit Americans of all races genders and creed for decades to come.

I have heard a few names that have been bounced around or are supposedly on Senator Obama's SCOTUS short list. And frankly some of these men and women are stellar people. I won't go spilling the beans on these because it's all hearsay and what not. However, Senator Obama's experience as a constitutional law professor in a well respected law school I feel places him in a unique position to be well equipped to fill vacancies in the federal court system. I suspect that the courts will have a completely new tone after his first four years.

Why me?

I have been a resident of Kentucky all my life, a Democrat since I knew what one was, and have always been willing to stand up and work for what I believe in. While Senator Obama did not receive much support in the Commonwealth, much less the Second District, he did win some support and delegates. Let me start by providing you with a bit of my political history. I attended a college in southern Indiana. The school had not had a College Democrats chapter in the memory of most professors. I set out to start one and during the summer of my freshman year succeeded in chartering the chapter and receiving the support of the county democrats. We worked hard to educate students, many of whom had never even voted, and register them. I spent some time working in a small role with the Kerry Kentucky campaign over the summer. We used election as a springboard for our College Democrats and quickly obtained the support of few thousand students on a very small, conservative campus. The following year we started member maintenance programs to keep people interested in the non-election years. After that, I worked through my role as chairman with the Baron Hill campaign in doing GOTV. We also worked with a local representative’s bid for election. I am happy to say upon graduating, I left the college chapter in a strong position with solid funding and growing support. It was also during this time that I was successful campaign advisor in my home county. During these years I attended CDA conventions and training, YDA conventions and training, and off year DNC
conventions.

Currently, I am enrolled in law school in Washington, D.C. Within a month of being at the law school, I was tapped to be the Fundraising Chair for the law school's Democrats. My first fundraising event was considered an immense success by our own and other organizations. A few months later, I attended the National Democratic Law Students Conference representing my school. I successfully ran from the floor for the position of Director of Technology defeating two other candidates by the widest margin of any race in those elections. Since taking the position, I have been working on membership database management for the group along with other duties. Upon return from the conference, I was elected the Chairman of my law school's Democrats. I have am working with other law schools to organize the D.C. metro area’s law students. I have made it a personal goal on the executive board to help start chapters at UofL, UK, and other law schools in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Hope everyone enjoys all this stuff.

Kentucky Congressmen: John Yarmuth & David Boswell

I apologize for posting this so late. As a few of you know I tried to contact State Senator David Boswell fro Owensboro Kentucky regarding his race for the Second congressional seat from KY. A few months ago I succeeded in getting into contact with Mr. Boswell and discuss a few issues very important to me. First let me profusely apologize for not immediately posting this information. Law school coupled with other endeavors (NDLSC, etc.) caused me to place it on the back burner.

I can tell you this much, I think very highly of this man right now. Anyone that is a candidate for congress that is willing to speak with me just hits a high level of respect in my mind. I emailed Mr. Boswell and he emailed me back asking to speak by phone. After many weeks of phone tag he called me and we spoke for about roughly an hour. Admittedly I am knew to all of this and was simple giddy to get a call back, I mention this because I probably didn't do as good a job as I could. And since it has been a long time I don't remember as much as I wish.

I began by asking him his position on Telecommunications Amnesty. He was a bit confused, in part because he had not hear it referred to as such. He believes that the government should not be spying on it's own citizens without a warrant and that if they were involved in that, that they should not be receiving amnesty. He spoke of the importance of strong and constitutional law and going back to that from the last 8 years. He did say he supported maintaining the FISA court as a necessary tool for the executive branch to obtain warrants, but not without the judges.

I think at this point I wanted to do a back flip.

I then asked him about the Internet Neutrality movement and what he thought about it. This is where my memory is fuzzy. I think I might email him again to get him to clarify it for me again. I am seriously kicking myself on this one. What I think I remember is that he did not believe that people should be receiving different services when paying the same price. That it was a issue of law.

The final topic, and get this he wanted to keep talking and asked me for more questions but I was to stunned to come up with anything, was Iraq. Now he is obviously a moderate Democrat. Be he put it in very simple terms. He wants the withdrawal as soon as is feasible without casualties to American soldiers. He said we need to make sure we fund them and support them and get them out as soon as possible. He wasn't calling for a withdrawal tomorrow but an intelligent withdrawal that didn't risk American lives.

Is David Boswell my hero? No, I am probably much more progressive than Mr Boswell. But I know for certain he is the best candidate running. He is measured and seems to try and represent his district. His big issue is education and I believe he has done a great job in his work for education initiatives.

The second thing I want to tell you about is my meeting with Congressman Yarmuth of Louisville the other day. I went to school with someone with the KDP who is organizing picnics in every district in the city for Yarmuth to meet people at. I decided to pop into the first of them and it had a stunning turn out.

Towards the end of the event I went to introduce myself to Yarmuth and see if I could pick his brain. I didn't want to be presumptuous because I'm not even a constituent. He began talking to myself, another fellow, and the attorney hosting the event. He was honestly interested in my experiences as a law student and as a young activist. He made light of his “article 1” button campaign describing it as a silly reaction to how the congress couldn't get anything past the president. When the attorney asked Congressman Yarmuth what the button campaign was, this being the first she had heard of it, Marty Meyers, one of Yarmuth's LAs, promptly pulled out a pocket constitution and handed to her. We all cracked up a bit at this. They described the button campaign as just a simple way to get Americans to become interested in their own constitution and learn it.

Hon. Yarmuth also delved into a little bit of whats going on in the background. He said that if it hadn't been for “Nancy” and the rest of the leadership of the party we would be scattered. He mentioned that he thought the senate was going to pass a FISA bill minus the amnesty, and saying so mentioned how opposed he was to the amnesty and how much work the leadership had put in to try and get everyone in line on that vote.

I know we activists think it is just us calling our congresspersons that motivate them to flip their vote. But kudos for the leadership for their work on this.

I am attaching Mr. Boswell's website. Please consider contributing to his campaigning. I think I will email him again and try to get to better know him. We really need this seat. I have included a link to Yarmuth's ACTBLUE page also.