Noteworthy News

 

From Lexington Herald-Leader staff writers, November 7, 2006
Antics spike as elections draw near
Fliers' distribution among complaints

Election tomfoolery was evident in many city races yesterday as the 2006 campaign hit the final hours.

Mayor: A solid waste campaign?

Jaime Simpson, who lives in the Pine Meadows neighborhood, found a campaign flier for Mayor Teresa Isaac taped to his empty Herbie yesterday morning.

"I certainly don't think it's fair politics to have a paid city employee out, instead of collecting the garbage, handing out fliers," Simpson said.

The flier, which misspelled the mayor's name as "Isaacs," said it was from a Division of Solid Waste worker and urged people to vote for Isaac. "There has been a media campaign to misalign our current Administration ability to govern this city," the flier said.

David Sams, a Solid Waste employee, said he and about a dozen other employees handed out the fliers last Wednesday, on their day off. He said he had personally printed 10,000 fliers and his group was supposed to put them on front doors, not garbage cans.

Kay Lewis, operations manager for Solid Waste, said that her department had gone to the Pine Meadows neighborhood after it learned of the report, but could only find one flier.

"Our workers weren't hanging fliers," Lewis said. If they had been, she would have found more, she said.

Solid waste workers are not allowed to hand out campaign literature while working, Lewis said.

Isaac's campaign said it was not responsible for the fliers yesterday or those handed out last week.

District 2: Signs vandalized
Urban County Councilman Jacques Wigginton's large signs along Leestown Road from Lexington Cemetery to Bracktown were defaced sometime Sunday night to Monday morning. At least five of Wigginton's signs, which are 8 feet wide by 30 inches tall, were spray-painted with the word "Liar" over Wigginton's name and picture.

Wigginton said he didn't know who defaced his signs, but one of the signs was located in an area with a surveillance camera.

There's a chance the perpetrator may have been caught on camera, Wigginton said.

Tom Blues, Wigginton's opponent today, said it was "unacceptable" that Wigginton's signs were vandalized.

He added that he was not involved in the campaign prank and has run a campaign based on "truth and honesty."

"I suspect it was somebody who was angry with Mr. Wigginton, but I know nothing about it and I certainly deplore it and I know nobody who was active in my campaign would do such a thing," Blues said.

District 7: Stolen signs?
District 7 council candidate Justin Dobbs admits pulling up some campaign signs belonging to his opponent, K.C. Crosbie, but says he didn't do anything wrong.

"I did not put a single sign in my car," Dobbs said. "I did not steal anything. Every single sign that was there was left there."

Jeffrey Moore, a Crosbie campaign worker, said he saw Dobbs pulling out several Crosbie campaign signs in the grassy area by Hooters at Richmond Road and Man o' War Boulevard. Crosbie filed a criminal complaint with the county attorney's office and is planning to press charges, said Bill Hurt Jr., Crosbie's attorney. Dobbs could face a criminal mischief charge.

Dobbs said he pulled Crosbie's campaign signs and left them in piles because the property owner's attorney told him that political signs were not allowed on the property. Dobbs said the attorney told him to remove his sign, which was in the grassy area behind the E-Z Mail business.

A couple of days later, Dobbs said he saw 40 Crosbie signs by Hooters. Dobbs said he took down the signs because he knew the property owner didn't want signs on the property.

But Shirley Wiseman, a shopping center property owner, said she gave Crosbie permission to put the signs on the property.

Wiseman said she did not know who Dobbs is and could not comment on Dobbs' claim "because I have no idea what he is talking about."

District 9: Mailers complaint
Councilman Jay McChord and Justin Denton, a constituent of McChord's, filed two complaints with the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance yesterday.

The complaints were directed at three mailers sent to the voters of the 9th District by Citizens for Responsible Government, a group with a Pikeville post office box. The group is responsible for sending two mailers encouraging voters to vote against McChord. The third mailer spread false information about McChord's opponent, Wanda Mattingly.

Mattingly, who grew up in Pikeville, has said she is not responsible for the mailers and is not involved with Citizens for Responsible Government.

Citizens for Responsible Government -- which is not registered with the Registry of Election Finance -- could be in violation of state campaign finance laws, which say an organization must register with the Registry of Election Finance if it spends more than $500 on campaign advocacy materials.

Sarah Jackson, executive director of the Registry of Election Finance, said the office cannot acknowledge complaints until a 15-day response period has passed.

From HBO Documentary Films:
Hacking Democracy

This cautionary documentary exposes the vulnerability of computers - which count approximately 80% of America's votes in county, state and federal elections - suggesting that if our votes aren't safe, then our democracy isn't safe either. Premieres Thursday, November 2 at 9pm. (READ MORE)

From Dr. James Thurber, American University

This is a great website on the Midterm election - Professor Charles Franklin has a lot of good graphs and analysis and also links to other interesting sources of analysis that you may or may not know. The sites have been useful to me for teaching. Here's the site:

Political Arithmetik
Where Numbers and Politics Meet

Below are links to some of the pages I think you will like.

Here's his analysis of competitive House races, which he bases on survey data collected from each competitive congressional district by a pair of independent research firms. Of 20 races he includes in his analysis, his most generous prediction has Dems with a net gain of 9 seats:
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/09/hot-house-races-lean-dem.html

This is a page that Franklin links to (maintained by the firms that conducted the surveys in competitive House districts), with a great red/blue map of the country that has links for every competitive House race:
http://constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.php

Here's the page that shows the average of Bush support across many polls. The blue line shows the average support at each point in time and the gray dots represent the individual polls:
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2005/11/approval-of-president-bush-in-2005-and.html

Here's the page that compares approval numbers for each president from FDR to GWB:
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2005/11/presidential-approval-in-historical.html

From Young Voter Strategies.com, September 20, 2006, Contact: Kathleen Barr (Research Findings and Analysis in PDF format)

Young Voter Strategies Survey
Research Findings, September 10-17,2006

Democratic Strategic Analysis
Republican Strategic Analysis

New Poll: Young voters' top issues the economy, education and Iraq as election day 2006 nears

Poll Shows 80% Registered to Vote, but Not Hearing from Candidates on Top Issues

Ed Goeas, Celinda Lake Unveil Results of GW- Battleground Poll of 18-30 Year Olds

WASHINGTON, D.C.--With the 2006 elections just over six weeks away, young voters are most focused on education and the cost of college, jobs and the economy, and the war in Iraq, but are not hearing enough from either parties' candidates on most of these important issues, according to a new poll released today by The George Washington University's Young Voter Strategies (YVS) in collaboration with GW-Battleground pollsters. The poll, which catalogues young adults' attitudes in the 2006 election cycle, shows that young voters are engaged—80 percent are registered to vote—and eager to hear more from candidates on issues including college affordability, job creation, energy independence, and health care.

Young Voter Strategies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan project at The George Washington University with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts, commissioned the poll in response to growing interest in the youth bloc from campaigns and elected officials on both sides of the aisle. The bi-partisan polling team of Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners and Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group conducted the Young Voter GW-Battleground Poll.

The poll surveyed 650 18-30 year olds from September 10 – 17, 2006, including an over‐ sample of Hispanics and African-Americans. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 4.4 percent. Key findings include:

Young voters are most focused on key "pocketbook" issues such as education, the economy, and health care, as well as national security and Iraq, but are not hearing from candidates on most of these issues:

• Education and the cost of college (17%), jobs and the economy (13%), and Iraq (11%) were cited as the top issues about which respondents would most like Congress to do something.

• 86 percent of respondents said that a candidate's position on Iraq is important in deciding for whom to vote, as did 84 percent for energy issues and 75 percent for college affordability.

• Most young adults, however, say candidates are not talking enough about issues important to them. Significant majorities say candidates spend too little time talking about health care (70%), college affordability (70%), creating jobs (68%), and gas prices and energy (66%).

• 80 percent of respondents report that they are registered to vote and 63 percent have been paying "a lot" or "some" attention to the upcoming November elections.

Analyses of this poll by Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas show that both Democrats and Republicans have a significant stake in turning out young voters in 2006 and beyond, but that both parties must do more strategic outreach to young voters.

"This generation of young voters is huge and growing," said Lake. "The 2006 elections will be won by the party with the best turnout operation – if we're going to win back Congress this year and build power for the future, Democrats should ramp up efforts to mobilize young voters on issues of college affordability, the war in Iraq, the economy, and health care." U.S. Census Bureau data shows that today there are 42 million 18-29 year old citizens in the U.S. and that, by 2015, "Generation Y" voters ages 18‐ 38 will be one‐ third of the U.S. electorate.

"Today's young adults are paying attention to politics and they will vote if we ask them to," said Goeas. "Our polling shows that young Republicans are deeply concerned about core GOP issues—energy independence, moral values, and national security—and very supportive of the Republican Party, but need to be targeted and turned out. By turning out our youngest supporters this year, we can prevent our disadvantage with this overall age group from growing and build our base for the future."

Campaigns around the country are showing an emerging interest in targeting young adults as a way to win elections, said Heather Smith, Director of Young Voter Strategies. "Candidates from California and Arizona to Maryland and Florida are reaching out to young voters via the Internet, on campus, door-to-door, and over the phone," said Smith. "But after decades of neglect, campaigns' nascent interest in young voters is not yet enough. We know from our polling what issues move young adults, what tactics mobilize them, and that they will vote when asked. Both parties, if they want to win today and down the road, should make a plan for youth turnout in 2006."

The Young Voter GW-Battleground Poll surveyed 650 young adults between 18 and 30 years of age, 65 percent white, 13

percent African‐ American, and 15 percent Latino/a. Of those surveyed, 21 percent were full-time students, 10 percent part-time students, 26 percent were graduates from two or four year colleges, and 33 percent young adults with no college experience.

Young Voter Strategies regularly compiles youth polling, demographic research, and best practices for young voter mobilization. Most recently, YVS produced Polling Young Voters, noted above, and Young Voter Mobilization Tactics, a manual outlining which tactics are most cost-efficient and effective to best turn out youth to vote. Both are available at www.youngvoterstrategies.org. YVS is also running the largest nonpartisan youth voter registration project of 2006, a

collaborative project involving 14 groups to register 350,000 18‐ 30 year olds.

[Young Voter Strategies, a project of the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University, with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts, is a nonpartisan, nonprofits organization that provides the public, parties, candidates, consultants, and nonprofits with data on the youth vote and tools to effectively mobilize this electorate for upcoming elections. We are committed to making the targeting of young voters a more permanent part of electoral strategies.

The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University prepares students for participation in democratic politics, providing them with the critical thinking, knowledge, and skills necessary to succeed in professional careers in applied politics. The school also seeks to advance professionalism in politics by assisting the careers of its alumni, generating knowledge in the field, lauding appropriate professional conduct so as to promote ethics and professional standards, and advancing awareness of democratic values of fair play.

For more information on Young Voter Strategies, visit www.youngvoterstrategies.org

For more information on GW's Graduate School of Political Management, visit www.gspm.gwu.edu

For more news about GW, visit the GW News Center at www.gwnewscenter.org

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post Writers Group, September 19, 2006

Politics getting local and personal

BALTIMORE - This year's election may turn Tip O'Neill's adage, "All Politics Is Local," not so much upside down as sideways: In 2006, all local politics is national, and all national politics is individual.

The United States is witnessing a centralization and nationalization of politics that is unprecedented in our history. This trend is rooted in the rise of the political consulting industry, the intense competition between the two major parties for control of Congress, and vast changes in the technology of campaigning.

There is, as well, the concentration of political money at a national level as Washington-based interest groups, associations and lobbyists not only raise large amounts in political contributions within the capital, but also mobilize money for campaigns from their allies around the country.

The blogosphere has created central repositories of political information -- including news of very local developments that would otherwise go unnoticed on the national level -- that can speed the flow of intelligence to activists around the country. And the recruitment of candidates is ever more the job of national party committees, not local officials or organizations.

The result is that the conventional debate about whether congressional elections are primarily local or national in character is both irrelevant and misleading. Even apparently local developments are often orchestrated from afar, and even personal attacks on individual candidates are largely the work of a small cadre of Washington-based operatives.

Recent developments, including in last Tuesday's primaries, show how important national party machines are to the fate of individual candidates.

The most ironic national intervention was in Rhode Island, where Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the most liberal Republican in the Senate who has often voted against President Bush, was powered to renomination over conservative Stephen Laffey by the voter identification and message apparatus created by Bush, his top political aide Karl Rove and pollster Matthew Dowd.

Here was the president's own political operation trying to identify and bring anti-Bush voters to the polls in order to renominate an anti-Bush senator who is his party's only hope for holding a Senate seat in a very anti-Bush state. Ideology and loyalty were irrelevant. Control of Washington's levers of power is far more important. Chafee, who prides himself on independence, was in fact hugely dependent on a national party he often opposes.

Days before Chafee won his primary, The Washington Post's Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza reported that the National Republican Congressional Committee, based upon research by its own operatives, plans to run tough, negative ads against Democratic challengers this fall on "personal issues and local controversies."

These ads will be classic instances of seemingly individual and local factors invoked as part of a national, centrally directed effort. Such attack ads are likely to be used most in districts in the Northeast and Midwest where Republican candidates will be trying not to talk much about national Republican issues.

Even turning away from your party can be a national partisan strategy and Republicans are hoping to hold Congress by electing a herd of "independent fighters." At least five Republican candidates describe themselves with that exact phrase. New Jersey Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. calls himself an "independent fighter" and so do Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Reps. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Vito Fossella of New York.

In Maryland, Republicans hope to use local conflicts in the Democratic Party along racial lines to help Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, whose compelling personal story led the national party to recruit him, against Rep. Ben Cardin, the winner of this week's Democratic primary.

Cardin defeated former Rep. Kweisi Mfume, who, like Steele, is black. Mark Clack, Mfume's campaign manager, said here that Steele could "play off" African-American resentment "against the Maryland Democratic Establishment" over the lack of black representation at the top of the Democratic ticket. (Among the statewide Democrats, Anthony Brown, candidate for lieutenant governor, is African-American.)

Clack said for Cardin to win, "the frustration level in the African-American community will have to be doused." But he thinks Cardin will succeed because African-American voters have not forgotten the Republicans' use of racial "wedge issues" in past elections and because Steele's need to mobilize the GOP's conservative base will run counter to his effort to appeal to the black community. The Washington Republicans, on the other hand, hope Steele can be a success story in their well-coordinated national effort to blur national issues.

So in 2006, the local is not really local, everything is about controlling Washington, and "independence" is a product being franchised by a national party apparatus.

Volunteers

Recently I heard a story about a man who was sitting in the Louisville International Airport when the announcement was made that a flight to Las Vegas was full. The airline was looking for volunteers to give up their seats. In exchange, they offered to give a $100 voucher for the next flight and a first class seat in the plane leaving an hour later.

About eight people ran up to the counter to take advantage of the offer. About 15 seconds later all eight of those people sat down grumpily as the lady behind the ticket counter said, "If there is anyone else OTHER than the flight crew who'd like to volunteer, please step forward."

If you've flown often, you know that it is sometimes very difficult for airlines to find passengers who are willing to give up their seats. We all are busy and rushing to get to our next appointment. It is a busy world. And if you have been involved in campaigns as I have, you know that it is difficult any projects at your campaign, you know that it is sometimes just as difficult to find men and women who are willing to volunteer to give up their time and their efforts to accomplish a task.

The Democratic Party and our candidates seeking election are both often run by a "volunteer army" and while sometimes I wish that members were required to be more committed and active, I ultimately respect the fact that each if us has a choice. We can choose to give up our money, our energies and our resources, or we can choose not to do so. As with the airline, there are benefits to be gained by volunteering. Still, it remains our choice.

So, who will volunteer? Who will give some of their money?

In closing allow me to say in biblical terms, when the Lord asks, "Who will go for Us?", how many of us are prepared to say, "Here am I! Send me." (Isaiah 6:8)?

Excerpts from the New Michigan Democratic Party Platform

From the Preamble
There was a time when Americans were challenged to ask not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country. In recent years, however, we seem to have become less interested in looking first to the needs of others – especially the needs of the most vulnerable – and more interested in meeting only the needs of ourselves. America has always been at its best when Americans ask not "what's in it for me," but "what can I do to give back?"

The Michigan Democratic Party understands this basic principle. That is why Democrats in this state are seeking the Common Good – the best life for each person of this state. The orphan. The family. The sick. The healthy. The wealthy. The poor. The citizen. The stranger. The first. The last.

Seeking the Common Good is not difficult for Michigan's citizens to understand. Just ask the woman who watches her neighbor's son so mom can work to pay her heating bill. Ask the pastor, rabbi or imam who walks the street at night praying for the crime in his neighborhood to cease. Ask the dentist whose staff keeps telling her she's got to start charging families who don't have insurance. The people of Michigan deserve leadership with the moral courage that matches that of the people of Michigan.

By holding ourselves to this vision of the Common Good, Democrats have the integrity to deal with the challenges that face Michigan today. We address Michigan's economic situation while holding the "least of these" – our most impoverished, our least advantaged – at the forefront of our minds. We address security concerns while holding the "stranger" – immigrants and our brothers and sisters who live abroad – in the highest respect. We address our health care needs remembering the ill, the elderly, and the unemployed. In short, we do what is difficult, and we do what is right.

Michigan is showered with blessings – from the beach grass covering our sand dunes to the oil covering the hands of our assembly line workers. The people of Michigan who make it such a treasure deserve leadership who treasure them in return. In the Michigan Democratic Party and its candidates, Michigan's citizens will find just such leadership – leadership devoted to the Common Good.

Faith and our Party
Throughout our country's history, people of faith have played a major role in many of the great reforms of American society, such as the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights movement.  Leaders of those reform movements—people like Abraham Lincoln and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—were inspired by faith and used religious terminology in advocating their causes, allowing them to appeal to the best aspects of our nature and to call our Nation to the better futures they envisioned. 

The voices of the faithful have been an important part of our past, and they remain important as we confront new problems and challenges in the future. At times, Democrats have struggled to strike the difficult balance between abiding by the Constitutional mandate to protect individuals' freedom of religion while also preventing the establishment of state-supported religion. However, the central role faith plays in the lives of millions of Americans, and millions of Democrats, cannot be ignored. Democrats recognize the important contributions the faith community has made throughout American history in caring for the least and last among us and helping to keep our country's moral compass true. And so as Democrats, we welcome and encourage the active involvement of people of faith in shaping the values, priorities, and policies of the Michigan Democratic Party, our state, and our nation as we seek the Common Good.

Recognizing the Importance of the Faith Community

  1. Created the State's first Office of Community and Faith Based Initiatives
  2. Commissioned a Task Force of Faith based and religious leaders to coordinate Hurricane Katrina relief efforts 
  3. Worked with leaders of the faith community from across the ideological/theological spectrum to help craft the preamble and faith section of the Party Platform

Providing Opportunities for All, especially the Poor and the Vulnerable

  1. Created the $3.8 billion Jobs Today fund to provide more people access to jobs and job training in road construction and in high-growth industries
  2. Expanded the discount prescription drug program to give thousands of Michigan's elderly residents greater access to affordable prescription drugs
  3. Successfully fought against deep cuts the Republican Legislature proposed in numerous programs for our most vulnerable citizens, programs such as Medicaid, adult education, public transportation, day care
  4. Successfully led efforts to increase the minimum wage

Respecting all Stages of Life

  1. Started the Plan First! program expanding health services to 200,000 more women in order to reduce the number of unwanted and teenage pregnancies in Michigan.
  2. Promoted responsible stem cell research that would prevent potential abuse in the use of embryos and allow researchers new tools to advance the treatment of diseases, spinal cord injuries, birth defects and dementia.
  3. Expanded the children's health insurance program to give thousands more kid's access to health care services.
  4. Proposed the Michigan First Health Care Program to make affordable health care universally accessible to everyone in Michigan
  5. Fought Republican efforts to enact capital punishment in Michigan
  6. Implemented stricter standards in nursing home care

Stewardship of Our Earth

  1. Signed legislation to prevent large scale water withdrawals and diversions from the Great Lakes
  2. Protected over 6,000 acres of Great Lakes shoreline from development.
  3. Continue to opposed Republican efforts to allow drilling for oil in the Great Lakes
  4. Promote Smart Growth policies to protect natural environments while revitalizing our cities

Addressing the Moral Crisis of Segregation

  1. Promote more aggressive efforts to end the practice of racial steering and insurance redlining

"Politics in this election year and beyond should be about an old idea with new power — the common good. The central question should not be, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' It should be, 'How can we — all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable — be better off in the years ahead?' "---U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee,
606 Townsend, Lansing, Michigan 48933.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Printed in house, labor donated.

By Jack Brammer, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 10, 2006

Taped Prichard interviews reveal their insights at last

prichard2FRANKFORT - In the two years before his death in 1984, Edward F. Prichard Jr., one of the most brilliant minds Kentucky ever produced, sat down for a series of interviews to talk about his amazing life.

"I would hope this didn't hit public eye for a long time," he said in a May 1983 interview, concerned about his candid revelations of his and others' roles in a 1948 Bourbon County ballot-stuffing case that landed him in prison and took him painful decades to overcome.

With his pills and a cigar box by his side, the ailing, blind Prichard revealed that the infamous ballot-stuffing case was not the first time he had committed vote fraud.

The tape-recorded interviews of one of Kentucky's most influential leaders in politics and education have been kept sealed until now.

Prichard did not want their contents to be divulged until his and his wife's deaths. He died at age 69 on Dec. 23, 1984. His wife, Lucy Prichard, died this June 23 at her home in Versailles. She was 87.

The interviews with Prichard in Frankfort were conducted by the late Legislative Research Commission director Vic Hellard Jr. for the Kentucky Oral History Commission.

They produced 807 pages of transcripts. They speak of Prichard's childhood, of his prominence in Washington, of the vote-fraud case that abruptly ended a path some people thought might take him to the governor's office or even the White House, and eventually of his redemption.

"These tapes, which are now public record, certainly provide light to history and Kentucky's culture," said Tracy Campbell, a University of Kentucky history professor who wrote a 1998 book about Prichard called Short of the Glory.

"This is the first time as far as I know that Prichard spoke so openly about others in the ballot-stuffing case," Campbell said.

"Books and articles have been written about his life, particularly his fall from grace," said Doug Boyd, director of the Kentucky Oral History Commission. "But he bounced back, and today the state's leading group for education reform bears his name."

Boyd was referring to the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

Over the last few weeks, the Herald-Leader reviewed contents of the Prichard tapes at Frankfort's Kentucky History Center. Prichard's words follow in italics.

Growing up
Born Jan. 21, 1915, in Paris at his parents' home, Prichard's father, "Big Ed" Prichard, worked in farming, car sales, and, most passionately, politics. He became a Democratic state representative in 1937.

Prichard recalled that his dad had a dairy and often took milk to the needy.

But at the same time if one of them didn't vote the way he wanted them to he would cut their milk off.

Prichard was closer to his mother, Allene Power, whom he described as very literary, very musical. I was reared, you might say, sort of a mother's boy.

As a boy, Prichard got a legal and political education by attending trials at the Bourbon County Court House.

In those days, a trial was a source of excitement and drama in a small town and people went to that like they might go to a rock concert now ... that was probably the beginning of my desire and ambition to be a lawyer.

Away from home
At age 16, Prichard enrolled in Princeton. At age 20 in 1935, he was making speeches for Democrat A.B. "Happy" Chandler, who won that year's governor's race.

Prichard's fondness for Chandler was short-lived. He turned on his party really, became conservative and I just never had any more use for him.

At Harvard Law School, Prichard grew close to professor Felix Frankfurter and was his clerk after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Frankfurter to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. In September 1942 during World War II, Prichard joined Roosevelt's Brain Trust. Prichard recalled a concern the president had about leaks from the White House to reporters.

The President was mad 'cause people were leaking things and he had a bunch that was over there and raised the devil about it and then when we got through, you know, we all swore we wouldn't leak.

And then he turned to me and said, 'But there are a few things that need to be leaked now. There's one story (about farm prices) that I would like to see you, Prich, leak to Drew Pearson.' And I said 'Mr.' ... he told me what the story was, and I said, 'Mr. President, I already have.'

After Roosevelt died, Prichard returned to Kentucky. He was not well-liked by President Harry Truman, who eventually would earn Prichard's eternal gratitude when he commuted his prison sentence.

Trouble in Kentucky
 Prichard became a law partner in Lexington with childhood friend Phil Ardery, whose father, William B. Ardery, was a circuit judge in Paris.

In the 1947 governor's race, Prichard was on the side of winner Earle C. Clements. He advised him and did the same over the rest of his life for several other Democratic governors , especially Bert Combs and Ned Breathitt.

Prichard's heady position in Washington and Kentucky legal and political circles dropped in the fall of 1948.

On the morning of election day in 1948, there was a discovery of some 200 and, I don't remember exactly how many, but there was 249 or 253 ballots which had been placed in various ballot boxes in Bourbon County, stamped for the Democratic candidate.

And that resulted in a federal investigation of that election and indictments, and I suppose that was the beginning of my trouble.

The federal investigation of the ballot-stuffing in the 1948 U.S. Senate race lasted several months. A grand jury in Lexington indicted Prichard and his law partner, A.E. Funk Jr., for conspiracy to violate civil rights. After a lengthy trial in 1949, Prichard was convicted and Funk was acquitted.

No one else was indicted, although, the indictment charged that persons unknown were also parties to the conspiracy.

Prichard was sent to federal prison in Ashland in July 1950. He stayed there until Truman commuted his sentence on Christmas Day 1950.

The decisive witness in that trial was Judge Ardery, Judge W.B. Ardery, then the circuit judge of the 14th judicial district, who testified that I had revealed to him my involvement in this matter. And I think that was what was the element in the trial that resulted in the conviction.

Prichard admitted that he put forged ballots in the voting boxes.

I suppose from the time I was a small boy I had lived in an atmosphere in that county where it was almost a sport or a game to monkey with elections.

I can never remember the time when I didn't hear from people close to me about that sort of thing taking place in elections.

The 1948 ballot-stuffing was not Prichard's first venture into vote fraud.

It was the second time. The only other time I personally participated in anything of that sort was in 1946 when we had a primary for the United States Senate race. And Phil Ardery was the candidate against John Y. Brown and, of course, I had tried to help Phil in every way that I could.

Prichard acknowledged who else was involved with him in the scandal.

The third person involved was never indicted or convicted. And there were only three of us involved. Many people thought there were a lot of other people involved in it. There weren't. ...

Well, yes, he's dead now and this is a ... I would hope this didn't hit public eye for a long time still, it was Bill Baldwin, county attorney. Everybody knew it over there. Don't think that would surprise anybody, but he was never indicted or convicted and I'm glad he wasn't.

And he and I remained close friends the rest of his life. I was pallbearer at his funeral. He was an usher at my wedding.

Redemption
 More painful than prison, Prichard said, were the tumultuous years of efforts to restore his name.

In 1958, Prichard moved his law practice to Frankfort.

That probably was the beginning of some positive development. ... It was probably not until Mayor Breathitt became governor that I really began to feel any sense of ... of getting on.

Breathitt, governor from 1963 to 1967, appointed Prichard to some special panels, most notably the Council on Higher Education. Prichard's stature rose. He became a statesman.

Legacy
In his last interview, Prichard spoke mostly about education. He died about two months later. He did not live to see the state's major education initiatives in 1990.

But his influence resonates.

A few weeks ago, reporters received a news release about why it is important for Kentucky to keep improving education.

It was from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

 

From the Associated Press, posted on AOL News: Elections 2006, September 7, 2006

Pollster pleads guilty to making up results

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. - The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President Bush, Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results.

Tracy Costin pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Costin, 46, faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when she is sentenced Nov. 30.

As part of her plea agreement, Costin agreed to repay $82,732 to the unidentified clients for 11 jobs between June 2002 and May 2004. DataUSA is now known as Viewpoint USA.

According to a federal indictment, Costin told employees to alter poll data, and managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys.

FBI Special Agent Jeff Rovelli said 50 percent of information compiled by DataUSA and transmitted to Bush's campaign was falsified, the Connecticut Post reported Thursday.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang said on several occasions when the company was running up against a deadline to complete a job, results were falsified. Sometimes, the respondent's gender or political affiliation were changed to meet a quota, other times all survey answers were fabricated.

 

By Dan Hassert, Staff Reporter, The Kentucky Post, August 12, 2006

A nebulous brew
A pinch of loaded questions, a dash of biased sample... experts say it pays to be skeptical of political polls, because the ingredients can determine whether the numbers are potable or poisonous.

Back in 2000, when he was the lead strategist on the Jefferson County-Louisville merger campaign, Mike Shea read polls showing that white males in the southwestern part of the county were against the merger.

Proponents couldn't seem to reach them.

Then activist Jesse Jackson, visiting to campaign in an unrelated congressional race, urged residents to vote against the merger. But white males rebelled against Jackson, Shea said, and four days later a poll

Council on Public Polls
ASSESSING CREDIBILITY:
What you need to know

  • Who paid for the poll?
  • Who conducted the poll?
  • When was the poll done?
  • How was the poll conducted (phone, email, in person, mail)?
  • How many people were polled?
    How were those people chosen? (And was the survey limited to certain demographics or political groups or certain geographical areas?)
  • What was the response rate?
  • Exactly how were the questions worded?
  • In what order were the questions asked?
  • Are the released results from the whole group or a subset?
  • What is the sampling error, or margin or error?
    Source: National
showed support in that demographic had risen 20 points. That helped tip the balance, and the revolutionary ballot measure passed.

Shea, a veteran GOP consultant, tells that story to illustrate a point: Political polls should be taken "with a grain of salt," because things change fast. "When you're talking poll numbers in August, it doesn't mean a whole lot," he said. "We are an eon away from the election."

He and other polling experts and political strategists say that's timely advice as voters in Greater Cincinnati try to make sense of a flurry of polls released over the last few weeks in several key races.

Depending upon which poll you believe, U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis of Northern Kentucky is behind challenger Ken Lucas by 9 points, or 14 points. And Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland is leading Ken Blackwell by 11 points, or 22 points, or 6 points, or maybe not at all.

Which poll is most accurate? Which to believe? All of them and none of them, say experts who urge voters to keep three thoughts in mind:

Polls are a temporary snapshot of a race, and results can change in an instant depending upon news events and campaign developments.

A poll can be set up to say almost anything - that's why knowing the details of how it was conducted and who conducted it is critical.

While so-called horse-race results (who's ahead) attract all the attention, most polls are used for other purposes. So if numbers are being given out, it's for a reason. And campaigns like to "cherry pick" the results.

"Political polls, when done well, are a fabulous tool for figuring out how people think," said Nancy Belden, a former president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. "The problem is, are they misused? The answer, of course, is yes."

Belden, who works for the polling firm Belden Russonello & Stewart in Washington D.C., is a huge fan of polls but said there's a wide variety of ways they can be manipulated by those who conduct them or be misinterpreted by those who read about them.

The most important aspects are the questions asked and who they're asked of, she said. Responses can be influenced by how the questions are worded or by the order in which the questions are asked. Similarly, the number and form of available answers can influence the result.

The sample of those surveyed needs to be picked randomly to prevent distortion, and the sample needs to be large enough to matter, she said. That's why the method of polling - whether by phone, in person, by mail or via the Internet - is so important, she said. A Web site survey is not random, for example, because the responses come only from people who own computers and who are vested enough in an issue to respond.

The effect of poll results can be manipulated in other ways, too. Campaigns can release some polls but not others or release only parts of a poll. And poll results lose relevance if they're released late, or if the poll was done too early.

Too often, however, polls are accepted at face value in the excitement over the results, experts say. Either a campaign doesn't release enough information about a poll, or the journalist who writes about it and the voter who interprets it don't ask enough questions.

"If a campaign is putting numbers out there, the truth is, you don't know enough to make an intelligent decision (as to what it means)," said Shea, a lobbyist and GOP consultant who is a partner in the firm Public Affairs Strategies and estimates he's been involved in more than 100 political campaigns.

For sophisticated campaigns, a well-conducted poll can be a treasure trove of data that guides strategy and tactics. A poll can identify which messages are working and which aren't, what concerns voters have with a candidate, where support is strong and where it's weak, and how aggressive a campaign needs to be.

For example, if voters say the economy is their No. 1 concern, then a candidate must address the economy. If a candidate shows weak support in rural areas, then a campaign might schedule visits there. If a poll shows a candidate is way behind with just weeks to go, he or she might unveil some negative ads.

"Horse race (numbers) is what gets all the attention, but it's really the tip of the iceberg," Belden said. "The most useful part is totally inside the campaign."

Dale Emmons, a Democratic political consultant, said campaigns use different polls at different times to do different things. For example, a long benchmark poll is used to test out issues and candidates, while a trends analysis is used to measure over time how people respond to a development, and short tracking polls are used to measure the impact of a sudden event, such as an opponent's campaign commercial.

There are also "voter education" or "voter identification" polls, which are used to rally people to vote or raise the awareness of ideas and issues. The most onerous of these is the "push poll," and it's really not a poll at all but a device to sway voters by leaving them with an idea or an association. It's denounced by most trade organizations.

Unfortunately, Emmons said, many people don't realize they're being "pushed," so campaigns find such tactics effective.

But the results of valid polls are used to sway voters too. While campaigns rarely release full polling data ("We figure we paid for it," Emmons said), the "top line data" is often released to try to galvanize supporters, inspire financial contributors and win endorsements.

"Polls are done for internal purposes," said Herb Asher, a political science professor at Ohio State University. "When a campaign releases the numbers, it's trying to spin you."

Emmons, like other political observers, think a recent poll for the Kentucky Republican Party that showed voters' strong disapproval of Gov. Ernie Fletcher was leaked to persuade Fletcher to drop out of the race and keep people from giving money to his campaign.

It helps to be cynical, he said.

"There are a lot of people with a lot of motivations," Emmons said. "Stakeholders on both sides of the aisle are engaged in a war."

But that doesn't mean you should disregard polls. Asher said he tends to give more credibility to polls done by universities and big media companies (their sins have more to do with method than bias), although he said he respects the work of a number of credible polling firms.

He tends not make "too big a deal out of small differences" and looks for trends. With the polls showing Strickland's various leads, Asher advised, "take the average of the three."

 

By Hillel Italie, Associated Press, August 24, 2006

Fall books probe religion in politics

NEW YORK--This fall, former Sen. John C. Danforth will tour the country in support of his new book, "Faith and Politics," an attempt, he says, to start a discussion about the role of religion in elections and government.

Danforth will not be alone.

Religion in politics, a key topic of the 2004 presidential campaign and possibly again in 2008, is the subject of numerous books coming out this fall, including Mel White's "Religion Gone Bad," Dan Gilgoff's "The Jesus Machine," Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and the Rev. Barry W. Lynn's "Piety & Politics."

Most of the authors have harsh criticism for religion's impact, with Dawkins writing in disgust about "a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find ... obnoxious." Dawkins' book has an announced first printing of 75,000 and his editor at Houghton Mifflin, Eamon Dolan, says that "The God Delusion" reflects a "rising unease with the current state of the world."

"I feel that there's a growing sentiment among thoughtful people in general, whether they're religious or not, that religious belief has gotten us into many of the problems we now find ourselves in - from 9/11 to the Israel-Lebanon conflict to the ban on stem cell research," says Dolan, Houghton Mifflin's vice president and editor in chief.

Others, such as Jonathan Miller, a Democrat and Kentucky's state treasurer, see a positive, unifying role for religion. His "The Compassionate Community" advocates a "values-based policy agenda," based in part on biblical writings, and includes an afterword by former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, and a blurb from Republican Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Danforth's book may remind readers of Whitman's "It's My Party Too," published in 2005 and a call for GOP moderation. Danforth, an Episcopal priest and former Republican senator from Missouri, says he was inspired to write "Faith and Politics" by the dispute over Terry Schiavo, the irreversibly brain-damaged Florida woman who became a favorite cause of the religious right, and leading Republicans.

"That was the 2-by-4 that hit me over the head. I felt that was totally inappropriate and out of hand," says Danforth, whose book is being published by Viking with a first printing of 100,000.

"The question is whether religion is a reconciling participant in world affairs and American life, or whether it's divisive. To the extent that there has been a marriage of the Republican party with the Christian right, I think religion has been a divisive factor in political life."

Jonathan Karp, publisher of the Warner Twelve imprint at Warner Books, notes a related trend among other new books, what he calls the "feeling among blue state writers that they are out of touch with America and their need to go into that part of America themselves."

Karp cites Brian Mann's "Welcome to the Homeland," coming from Steerforth Press and billed as an antidote to "the condescending conclusion that supporters of President Bush and the right wing Republicans who control Congress are either dumb or mean." Similar works include Peter Feuerhard's "HolyLand USA," Lauren Sandler's "Righteous" and Jeffery L. Sheler's "Believers."

"We keep hearing about the evangelical movement, but many people don't know all that much about it," says Carolyn Carlson: executive editor of Viking Penguin, which is publishing Sheler and Sandler. "It's a much more diverse movement than we're often led to believe."

President Bush still has more than two years left in office, but authors aren't waiting to write his history. Two best sellers from the summer, Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" and Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine," offered inside stories of the administration's handling of the war on terror. That continues in the fall with Bob Woodward's "Inside the Bush White House, the Second Term" and Michael Isikoff's and David Corn's "Hubris."

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will have his say in Karen DeYoung's "Soldier," an authorized biography. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft looks back in "Never Again" and John Yoo, the ex-Justice Department lawyer who helped shape the Bush administration's controversial legal guidelines for its war on terror, presents his case in "War by Other Means."

After a disappointing year for literary fiction in 2005, this fall offers many promising releases, starting with "All Aunt Hagar's Children," a collection of stories by Pulitzer Prize winner Edward P. Jones, and continuing with Richard Ford's "The Lay of the Land," Charles Frazier's "Thirteen Moons" and Thomas Pynchon's epic, "Against the Day."

Other literary works include Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," Alice McDermott's "After This," William Boyd's "Restless," Margaret Atwood's "Moral Disorder," Alice Munro's "The View >From Castle Rock" and Edna O'Brien's "The Light of Evening."

"The list looks much stronger than last year," says Barnes & Noble, Inc., fiction buyer Sessalee Hensley. "This is the most literary fall I've seen in a long time."

 


Missed Votes in the Legislature
from KentuckyVotes.org
 

 

By Alan Bjerga, Lexington Herald-Leader.com, "Close Up", August 22, 2006

In 'Wiki wars,' political foes keep re-editing candidate bios
Today's topic: Net politicking

WASHINGTON - While politicians campaign and vacation over the August congressional recess, battles over their biographies and reputations are raging on the Internet.

Along with blogs, meetups and other Net innovations, 2006 is featuring full-scale "Wiki wars," as partisans from the right and left edit candidate information on Wikipedia biographical entries to gain political advantage at the popular reference site.

Candidates across the country have been caught doctoring their own entries, erasing politically embarrassing facts and spinning their positions on issues. But their political opponents also change information online, straining Wikipedia's strength as a reliable resource.

"Our primary goal is neutrality," said Wayne Saewyc, a Wikipedia spokesman in Vancouver, British Columbia. "In election years especially, people don't want the articles to be neutral."

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia at www.wikipedia.org available to anyone who uses the Internet. Unlike a traditional reference book, it's written by the readers. The idea is that people who know about a topic will add their knowledge to an entry, building an extensive information source.

Since it started in 2001, the system's proved incredibly popular: In July, Wikipedia had more than 28 million visitors, ranking 18th among all Web sites according to comScore Media Metrix, an online popularity rater.

Wikipedia is more popular online than Disney, Wal-Mart and ESPN. But its open-source approach creates problems when applied to controversial topics, as contributors use sites to push their versions of "the truth."

Last week, Wikipedia briefly banned all editing of entries done from computers linked to congressional offices, after staffers for Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., were found deleting a promise Gutknecht once made that he would limit himself to 12 years in office. That promise was about 12 years ago. Gutknecht is campaigning for re-election.

Staffers for Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and others have been found doctoring entries. But although congressional offices have come under fire for trying to make lawmakers look good, Wikipedia is also filled with examples of political opponents trying to make lawmakers look bad.

Last winter, for example, the entry for Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Kan., focused first on his career as a 1960s track and field star, then on his political career.

Now, his entry devotes more space to the 2000 purchase of a Washington, D.C., townhouse from a family values group connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Some politicians shrug off the news of bio editing. Ryun spokeswoman Michelle Schroeder said Wikipedia monitoring isn't a high priority in his office.

But Brian Hart, spokesman for Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said he monitors his boss' site regularly and at times has tried to reason with "editors" whom he finds hostile to his boss.

Saewyc said debates on controversial topics can become incredibly time-consuming and sometimes maddening. In the entry covering Scientology, for example, contributors argued for nine months over whether the Scientologist method of childbirth should be called "silent birth" or "quiet birth."

Wikipedia monitors can control political squabbles by blocking access from entire sectors, such as Congress, freezing sites, banning users who abuse the system or slowing the rate at which people can post changes.

Open-source editing itself can fix many of the abuses, especially on entries that get a lot of attention, Saewyc said. But no solution is perfect, due to the site's nature.

In some ways, Saewyc said, the debates over Wikipedia entries are the same debates that writers and editors have always had over reference articles -- the open process just makes them much more public and much less polite.

But that's true of blogs and discussion groups, he said. For its strengths and weaknesses, Wiki wars are here to stay.

"It's always a work in progress," he said.

 

Article appeared in the July 26, 2006 issue of The Kentucky Gazette
Opposition research can become campaign's silver bullet
'Votes, quotes and anecdotes'

 WASHINGTON (AP) – Republican Rep. Anne Northup of Kentucky was caught in an uncomfortably close race a few campaigns back, until she plucked the fruits of months old research that her campaign had compiled into her opponent's record.

The resulting commercial showed Eleanor Jordan in an unflattering moment, standing on the floor of the Kentucky Legislature urging fellow lawmakers to wrap up their work. "I have a fund raiser at 6 o'clock and I want to get out of here," Jordan said with an impatient glance at her wristwatch.

Jordan "lost her momentum after that," Northup recalled recently – neither the first nor the last candidate to benefit from a political subspecialty known as opposition research.

"Votes, quotes and anecdotes," Michael Gehrke, a veteran Democratic researcher, called his area of expertise. "At the end of the day, all you're really finding is nuggets."

"Silver bullets are frequently talked about but rarely found," agreed Brian Jones, a Republican with long experience in political research. "Ultimately, what make the most effective hits are 'did they pay their taxes, (or) did they vote for excessive spending."'

To some, opposition research is a tedious but important part of politics. To others, it's a black art. Equally available to both parties, even senior Democrats concede Republicans have excelled in recent years at conducting and using the research.

By any description, the art of combing a politician's past for fact or flaw has taken on a wider role in recent years.

Technology is part of the reason. Once, researchers had to look through musty newspaper archives. Now, the Internet and the proliferation of cable television make voluminous information and arresting images far more readily available.

An era of heightened partisanship is another.

Both parties maintain the senatorial equivalent of a campaign war room in the Capitol, constantly drawing on their research to put the other side in the worst light possible.

With the House narrowly divided between the parties, research plays a prominent role every two years in the few dozen races that are pivotal.

Republican Rep. Phil Crane of Illinois lost in 2004 after Democrats emphasized his habit of taking junkets at the expense of lobbyists. Two years earlier, Democrat George Cordova's hopes of going to Congress from Arizona effectively ended when Republicans unearthed two tax liens.

"You need to know everything about your opponent's voting record, policy record, everything he or she has ever said, done, even thought of," says Stephanie Cutter, a consultant who worked on Democratic Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Given the scrutiny they can expect, it's wise for candidates to conduct opposition research on themselves.

"The ideal situation is to know before the other side your most vulnerable point," said Terry Holt, a veteran of House campaigns as well as President Bush's 2004 re-election effort.

Senate campaigns often conduct the research themselves. Most House campaigns do not, and party committees generally limit their involvement to races that strategists believe could be pivotal in the national battle for control of Congress

"We send someone into the district who would go to the library, check (online) or old clips of newspapers. They'd go to the county courthouse and look through tax records, property records, all available public documents, including criminal records," said Carl Forti of the House Republican campaign committee.

In other cases, committees or candidates hire outside companies to do the job, saving money on travel costs.

Final reports can be voluminous, and strategy considerations dictate when and how the material is used.

"You're thinking about how you might want to release the information so it's going to have a maximum amount of impact," Jones said. The options include mass mailings and television commercials, but in some cases, it's preferable to "get the information into a newspaper. Then you have third party credibility."

A Web site or blog are other options, on the theory that once information is on the Internet, it may gain wider circulation in the mainstream media.

Officials are reluctant to disclose what they've stockpiled for the 2006 campaign, although a preview was on display in Indiana recently after a sheriff's office mistakenly released a suspected child molester wanted in Kentucky.

"Can you imagine a suspected child rapist being captured in Vanderburgh County, but then mistakenly released by Brad Ellsworth sheriff's department?" began an ad hustled onto the air by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Ellsworth is challenging six-term GOP Rep. John Hostettler.

While the release of the accused man was well known publicly, the NRCC's next move stemmed from opposition research.

The party committee made sure a local newspaper, the Evansville Courier and Press, had material for a follow-up story. The article quoted an NRCC spokesman as saying Ellsworth had once endorsed a judge's decision not to jail a participant in a work-release program who was later responsible for a triple murder-suicide.

Ellsworth responded with an ad touting his law enforcement credentials. And Jay Howser, his campaign manager, said the sheriff had not endorsed the judge's decision, but had merely said he had acted within his authority.

But with one of their prime recruits under assault on law enforcement – his presumed political strength – the DCCC dusted off its own research. Hostettler "voted to cut funding to crack down on meth labs and against putting thousands of new police on the streets, claiming he's a fiscal conservative. But when it comes to his own pocketbooks he's a big spending liberal, voting