KY Dems swing to the right

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lundergan to lead Democrats
Beshear resigns as party's lawyer



FRANKFORT, Ky. — Kentucky Democratic Party officials chose former state Rep. Jerry Lundergan as their new chairman yesterday — overriding activists' protests about his past ethics scandal and prompting the party's lawyer to resign.

Lundergan, a Lexington caterer who was elected 24-18 by the party's State Central Committee, quickly signaled his intention to move the party in a more conservative direction.

He noted during his acceptance speech that he's anti-abortion and appealed directly to Western Kentucky voters who turned out several incumbent House Democrats in November.


Lundergan also said he would raise $1million this year for the party and send more help to county party officials.

"It's a new day at the Democratic Party," said Lundergan, vowing to make sure Democrats are always "in the face of the Republicans." The vote for Lundergan prompted former Lt. Gov. Steve Beshear to resign as the party's general counsel, citing Lundergan's 1989 conviction for violating an ethics law that bars lawmakers from doing no-bid work for the state. That conviction was later overturned on grounds that it should have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

"I'm afraid our party is going to be embarrassed over the next year," Beshear said. "We have probably cost ourselves seats."

Lundergan said the complaint stemmed from his decision to back former Gov. Wallace Wilkinson over Beshear in the 1987 gubernatorial race.

"I'm sure he'll think different tomorrow," Lundergan said.

The chairmanship became vacant two months ago when Bill Garmer resigned after Democrats lost seven House seats in November. Garmer denied the election results had anything to do with his resignation.

Lundergan emerged as the only candidate last week after a 12-person nominating committee deadlocked between Lundergan and Audrey Haynes, a national YMCA official who then withdrew.

Some party officials — including Fred Johnson, the nominating committee's chairman — had pushed to keep looking for new candidates. But the State Central Committee turned down those efforts on a 28-18 vote.

Some activists had threatened to nominate other candidates from the floor, but such opposition never materialized.

Lundergan's supporters said the party needs a leader who can work full time and raise money for the daunting task of rebuilding the party.

"Jerry Lundergan has a fire in his belly to do it," said state Sen. Ed Worley, D-Richmond.

Lundergan said he would not be paid and vowed to raise $100,000 from his friends to satisfy a commitment he made while interviewing for the chairmanship.

State Republican Party Chairman John McCarthy branded Lundergan as "part of the same old machine."

"I don't think anything in his background demonstrates that he has the ability to lead them in the direction they want to go," McCarthy said.

Two other Democratic Party officials also quit yesterday — vice chairwoman Kerry Morgan and executive director Eddie Jacobs. Morgan said she wanted to work on "other projects," and Jacobs said he wanted to let Lundergan name his own team.

Several top elected Democrats said they were disappointed with the choice.

State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, who served on the nominating committee and had backed Haynes, called Lundergan "very controversial" and said he wanted to heed the "hundreds" of his supporters who urged him to oppose the nomination.

"I am disappointed, but the Democratic Party has a democratic process," Miller said. "The other guy won and I accept the result."

State Auditor Crit Luallen, who also served on the nominating committee, said she opposed Lundergan but supported the party's determination to take a vote yesterday, since that's what legislative leaders wanted and they're the ones who face the next critical round of elections.

Lundergan received a big boost when the official representatives of Democrats in the House — the party's last stronghold — dropped their opposition, which had sunk his bid for the post last year.

Things have changed since then — namely the November election losses, said Rep. Michael Weaver, who represents House Democrats on the State Central Committee.

"We are saying that Kentucky is a very conservative state, and if you're going to survive in the Democratic Party, you better not have a message that says I'm a liberal," Weaver, D-Elizabethtown, said.

House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, left yesterday's meeting before it ended. When reached later on his cell phone, he hung up on a reporter without taking any questions.

[Democratic Hawk]

Since it's Kentucky, a move to the right may not be such a bad move

The Republicans hold five of the six House Districts and 28% of Kentucky's Democrats voted GWB

The Democratic Party needs to be a broad church with vibrant liberal, moderate/centrist and conservative factions. When it comes to selecting candidates for political office, it is necessary to be pragmatic and choose candidates, who suit the profile of their constituents

Dave

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Democratic Party needs to be a broad church with vibrant liberal, moderate/centrist and conservative factions.

Conservatism is a discredited ideology. Why does America need 2 conservative parties?

[opebo]

The Democratic Party needs to be a broad church with vibrant liberal, moderate/centrist and conservative factions.

Why does America need 2 conservative parties?

Excellent point Populist3!  I couldn't agree more, and I greatly fear that the Democrats are now going to abandon their firm stands on individual freedom (social issues), in the same way they abandoned their economic liberalism during the 1980's and 1990's. 

[Democratic Hawk]

The Democratic Party needs to be a broad church with vibrant liberal, moderate/centrist and conservative factions.

Conservatism is a discredited ideology. Why does America need 2 conservative parties?

I'm not advocating that the Democratic Party become a conservative party - but they need to be competitive in the South and thus, it may need to moderate their stance on social issues to get social conservatives (many Democrats are socially conservative) back on board - folk who naturally subscribe to moderate economic liberalism and populism

Personally, I think the future of the Democratic Party as a whole lies in the ideological centre - but they need to reach out to moderate conservatives as well as liberals

States like Arkansas and West Virginia are still overwhelmingly Democratic (at state and congressional level) and the party needs to get them back on board to stand any chance of regaining the presidency

Meanwhile, the party needs to field moderate candidates in congressional elections. I can't see many GOP districts falling to liberal Democratic candidates (not in the South anyway)

I still think that the Democratic Party represents the economic interests of the majority - but it needs to re-connect with former Democrats on social issues

The Democratic Party was for a long time the dominant party and it needs to gravitate towards the ideological centre in order to defeat extreme conservative and reactionary forces

Dave

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'm not advocating that the Democratic Party become a conservative party - but they need to be competitive in the South and thus,

I think most of the rural South has become a lost cause. In some counties (like some in central Alabama) the Democrats don't have any problems winning, but in some of the others, people are still fighting the Civil War.

There's no point in alienating the progressive wing of the party just to win rural Southerners who will never again vote Democratic no matter what.

[phk]

Picking up the South means giving up liberals.

[opebo]

I still think that the Democratic Party represents the economic interests of the majority - but it needs to re-connect with former Democrats on social issues

If the Democrats do this they drive away all the tolerant secularists who are the heart of the party.  

[phk]

Its a no-win battle, you move right, you lose the left.

Unless they move so far right, they actually pickup Republicans and force the Republicans to move even further right.

I'd wager another party would emerge than.

If anyway to grow, let those old Democrats go, they will never come back to the party and most of us know it. We should thus have a target audience for people that are more RINOish like Chafee, Guliani, Snowe, Collins, Specter.

[Rob]

I think it's a good idea to move to the right in Kentucky. During the New Deal years, the party was truly a Big Tent- white southerners, northern blacks, liberals, conservatives, and everything in between. The Dems need to rebuild some of that broad appeal. This sounds like a step in the right direction.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think it's a good idea to move to the right in Kentucky.

If this happens, the progressives in that state will be disfranchised.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I still think that the Democratic Party represents the economic interests of the majority - but it needs to re-connect with former Democrats on social issues

If the Democrats do this they drive away all the tolerant secularists who are the heart of the party. 

The simple fact is that any party that appeals only to secularists (tolerant or intolerant, like opebo) will be an minority party in the US.  If the Democratic Party is going to be competiitive, it has to be able to appeal to people who place importance on religion.  This doesn't mean pandering to them from time to time, as some Democrats have done.  Such pandering is blatantly obvious and alienates voters.

If the Democrats are going to have any success with a secular-oriented platform, they need to abandon their efforts to portray it as an effort to protect government from the effects of religion.  That isn't why we have seperation of church and state.  We have it to protect religion from the effects of government.

[Rob]

I think it's a good idea to move to the right in Kentucky.

If this happens, the progressives in that state will be disfranchised.

What progressives? (LOL). Seriously though, the great majority of Kentucky Democrats are conservatives. Any small losses among liberals(if any) will be greatly outweighed by gains among conservatives and moderates. The Democrats don't have much to lose in Kentucky by trying this strategy.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Seriously though, the great majority of Kentucky Democrats are conservatives.

What about the ones who aren't?

What right do the conservatives have to deprive progressives of a party?

[Rob]

Seriously though, the great majority of Kentucky Democrats are conservatives.

What about the ones who aren't?

What right do the conservatives have to deprive progressives of a party?

Liberals will stay with the Democrats. The Democrats will remain the party of economic populism, which used to be the main focus of progressivism. That at least will make the Democrats the lesser of two evils for progressives.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Liberals will stay with the Democrats.

Uh, they haven't. In 2000 they supported Nader.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To quote Jimmy Carter, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Rob]

Liberals will stay with the Democrats.

Uh, they haven't. In 2000 they supported Nader.

Uh, in 2000 Nader only got 1.5 percent in Kentucky. By your posts, I assume you think liberals are a lot more than 1.5 percent of the electorate in Kentucky. So, I guess that means the great majority of Kentucky liberals still voted Democratic, which is the point I'm trying to make.

[phk]

I'd rather target social liberal Republicans to convert.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd rather target social liberal Republicans to convert.

In Kentucky?

[opebo]

If the Democrats are going to have any success with a secular-oriented platform, they need to abandon their efforts to portray it as an effort to protect government from the effects of religion.  That isn't why we have seperation of church and state.  We have it to protect religion from the effects of government.

No, is is to protect the individual freedom of citizens from the inherent tendency of particular religions to want to impose their views through State force. 

[Democratic Hawk]

I think it's a good idea to move to the right in Kentucky. During the New Deal years, the party was truly a Big Tent- white southerners, northern blacks, liberals, conservatives, and everything in between. The Dems need to rebuild some of that broad appeal. This sounds like a step in the right direction.

Bearing in mind that the Democrats hold one (yes, a whopping one!) of the six Kentucky House Districts, it can only be a step in the right direction. Perhaps, a bit of electoral pragmatism might start and kick in

The Democrats need an ideologically centrist message that will bring moderates from all ideological orientations on board

The Democratic Party can't afford to be running far left hard-core liberals (where they cannot win) if it wants to win control of the Presidency and Congress

In Britain, during the 1980s, the British political landscape swung to the right and the Labour Party was unelectable. From the late 1980s, the party had to pragmatically moderate its stance on many issues and lay claim to the centre ground. Now, moderate progressives are keeping the reactionaries at bay (for the time being anyway!)

The Democrat's need to be moderate pragmatic idealists and be a clear alternative to the extreme reactionary ideologues

Surely even for committed liberals, moderate Democrats are preferable to conservative Republicans - it's surely not that difficult to understand

Dave

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Democrats are going to have any success with a secular-oriented platform, they need to abandon their efforts to portray it as an effort to protect government from the effects of religion.  That isn't why we have seperation of church and state.  We have it to protect religion from the effects of government.

No, is is to protect the individual freedom of citizens from the inherent tendency of particular religions to want to impose their views through State force. 

The problem of how to prevent the tyranny of the majority from controlling government is not a problem that is exclusive to religious majorities.  The prevention of such tyranny does not require focusing upon one particular type of majority.