Give Up On The Fifth

Several blogs are buzzing about Anne Northup and the old fifth district.

Everyone read Ryan Alessi’s article. Northup is a congressional loser. She will not refurbish the district’s luster.

The "Old Fifth" Defined and In-Depth

Over the past few weeks a common theme has emerged in the Republican gubernatorial primary: the importance of the “old fifth” among the chattering class. Ryan Alessi recently reported that the area could no longer be considered the GOP’s Gibraltar; Bryan Mills has compared candidates’ attempts to woo this area to picking blackberries; and the KY Enquirer’s Pat Crowley wrote that Anne Northup’s pick of Jeff Hoover as her running mate was part of an effort to “corral the Old Fifth.” (Notice the capitalization in Crowley’s column.)

Despite its obvious importance, there’s the real possibility that there are a still a few readers who’re wondering whether this is some reference to a Masonic rite, a mysterious organization that stresses the number “5” as a part of its philosophy, or even an area similar to that facility in Nevada called “Area 51”, where Kentucky keeps aliens and spaceships. In fact, the Old Fifth is, perhaps unfortunately, nothing quite so mysterious or fascinating.

With Northup-Hoover, Old Fifth Has Chance to Regain Lost Influence

The last time voters in the “old fifth” had one of their own in Kentucky’s Governor’s office was 1931. That’s when Knox County pol Flem “Flam” Sampson was Governor. Sampson is best known for his efforts to create the Kentucky Colonel system and the Kentucky Progress Commission.

While there isn’t a candidate from the old fifth in the race this year, Jeff Hoover, who’s running for Lt. Governor under Anne Northup, would be a nice consolation prize for the region.

Northup/Hoover Influence in Old 5th

Cyberhillbilly has some more of his enlightened coverage of the 2007 governor's race here, here, and here.

Jonathan really has the best coverage of this thing so far. These pieces primarily define the Old Fifth and explain Northup/Hoover's potential for influence in this important region.

Northup Heads to 5th District

Former Louisville Congresswoman Anne Northup is venturing far beyond the Gene Snyder Freeway … campaigning in what Louie Nunn used to call “the old Republican fifth.” That’s a reference to the once Republican majority district that was basically centered on Lake Cumberland. Redistricting after the 1990 census took the 5th east and turned it slightly Democratic in registration. But Southern Kentucky is still reliably Republican in its voting patterns and registration. Counties like Pulaski, Laurel, Whitley, Clay and Russell can quickly add up the GOP vote. Northup is introducing herself in those areas, accompanied by her running mate from Jamestown, House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover.

School is Open, Fletcher is Closed

From Blue Grass, Red State:

Governor Fletcher cancelled a scheduled visit to East Carter Middle School this morning. Reportedly, it was due to snow. That's kind of hard to believe, since he was apparently able to make it to Ashland, just one county east in Boyd, for his Get Healthy thing. I'm not there, though, so I'm not sure. Maybe it was due to snow, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he has a horrible reputation for 1) being hard to reach and 2) making commitments and then cancelling. Something comes up every now and then, for sure, and that is certainly forgivable. Governor Fletcher has earned himself quite a reputation on this, however, and it hasn't done anything for the initial arrogance with which he and his staff entered Frankfort.

Fletcher is a Friend?

Senator Bunning endorsed Anne Northup.
With friends such as these…

You Have No Excuse

Right to Life did not endorse Jeff Hoover’s previous campaign. The internet’s excuse? He failed to complete the organization’s survey.

This excuse is pathetic.

Candidates receive hundreds of surveys. They virtually never answer themselves. Despite being unopposed, why would Hoover not have an intern complete a five-minute form?

Questing Number Two

Anne is a true conservative? Why would her ticket include someone Right to Life wouldn't endorse?

The L Word

Senator Jim Bunning: “Anne is a true conservative who is able to appeal to voters, even in the most liberal part of state.”

Abortion and pork barrel spending. Bunning has said it all.

Complaining About the Sword

Until this year, Richard W. Pombo, the seven-term Republican congressman from the Central Valley, had never caused much fanfare about bringing home earmarks, the special local projects that circumvent the normal budgeting process. He was far better known for his work fighting environmental regulations.

All that changed in the closing months of this year’s surprisingly tight re-election campaign, when Mr. Pombo began trumpeting the money he had directed to his car-bound district — particularly $75 million for highway expansion, a gift for one of the most congested areas of California.

But it was not enough to persuade voters like Alex Aldenhuysen, a self-described independent, just out of the Navy and voting for the first time in two years. He said he was turned off by Mr. Pombo’s earmark talk. And in the end, Mr. Pombo lost his seat to a Democrat in one of the year’s most significant upsets.

A timeworn bit of political wisdom has been that larding one’s district with pork projects can act as an incumbency protection program. And the Republican leaders in Congress ardently followed that principle.

“The leadership talked all the time about how we’ve got to use earmarks to help these vulnerable members,” said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has become one of Washington’s loudest opponents of earmarking. “But what this election showed was that earmarks just aren’t that important to voters.”

The powers of incumbency could not outweigh far more pressing issues, this year, like the war in Iraq — which became the central point of most of the Democratic campaigns — or the scandals that tarnished the Republican Party as a whole. The abuse of earmarks itself became an issue in several races with some of their biggest users, including two senators and four House members who served on the appropriations committees that oversee federal spending, losing their seats.

It would be premature to write off the power of earmarks. Even in a highly unfavorable year for Republicans, some of the biggest pork-style spenders handily won re-election. And though Democrats have vowed to strip earmarks from unfinished spending bills, the practice is such an oft-used political tool that it may prove too tempting to eliminate.

“When you’re talking about institutional change, you need something sweeping to happen in an election,” said James D. Savage, a professor of political science at the University of Virginia and the author of a book on earmarks. “I think the incentive to use earmarks is still there because it’s one of the few tools a member of Congress can use.”

The number and total cost of earmarks reached record highs over the last two years, but they seemed to offer little help to some members.

Representative Anne M. Northup, a Kentucky Republican who was a member of the House Appropriations Committee, was defeated after five terms despite bringing earmarks to her district, which includes Louisville, that were worth more than five times that of two other districts without competitive races. Mr. Flake identified her as one of the Republican leaders who pushed for earmarks to help troubled incumbents.

“Anne Northup was in there saying we’ve got to have these earmarks to help certain members,” Mr. Flake said. “She was always saying how valuable they are.”

In an interview, Ms. Northup defended earmarks as a flexible budget tool for members of Congress, and she took issue with Mr. Flake’s conclusion that voters rejected politicians who relied on them.

Instead, she singled out one of the most notorious earmarks of the last budget cycle — $230 million to build a bridge from a small town in Alaska to an island with fewer than 50 people — as an anchor that dragged down other Republicans. Representative Don Young, an Alaska Republican who served as chairman of the Transportation Committee, guided a bill loaded with a record amount of earmarks, including his bridge project in his district.

“How do you explain to voters a $230 million bridge to nowhere?” Ms. Northup asked. Mr. Young, who has been chairman of the Transportation Committee since 2001, did not respond to interview requests.

A few weeks before the end of his re-election campaign, Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, issued an unusual news release. He added up all the earmark projects he had delivered to his state, boasting of bringing home $2 billion to a state with fewer than a million people.

Montana, Mr. Burns said, had been awarded a huge range of federal projects, from $597,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute to $8 million to encourage private space travel.

“That money is going to be spent somewhere,” Mr. Burns said in a debate at Montana State University, where the Burns Technology Center is named for him. “I want Montanans to get first share.”

Mr. Burns, a three-term senator who was considered one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents, lost by about 3,000 votes.

“These vulnerables were literally screaming at the top of their lungs about what they’ve been able to deliver,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group.

Skip to next paragraphRepresentative Mike Sodrel, Republican of Indiana, was put on an influential transportation committee two years ago specifically so he could increase the amount of financing for his swing district, he said in a news release.

For Mr. Sodrel’s district, it paid off. He boasted that he had been able to increase transportation spending there by $220 million, or 37 percent, from the previous spending bill. Mr. Sodrel still lost his seat in November.

There were several races in which the ability to bring home hundreds of federal projects might have made enough of a difference to withstand a Democratic tide.

Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, issued dozens of news releases over the last 18 months boasting of the projects she brought home to a district that is considered evenly divided between the two parties.

There was $2.27 million to convert a mountain of garbage into a green energy center, $1.1 million to help keep residents of a fast-growing suburb from having to pay more in user fees for a new sewage system, and the latest installment in $2.7 million in federal disbursements to “evaluate freeze-dried berries for their ability to inhibit cancer.”

In a spending bill that never passed the most recent session of Congress, Ms. Pryce’s district stood to get the largest single earmark in Ohio — $1.75 million for a health research institute. In total, the Columbus area lined up about $4.5 million in special money.

By comparison, Portland, Ore. — a similar-sized metropolitan area with no contested Congressional seats — was to receive $625,000 in earmarks.

Ms. Pryce won by barely a thousand votes.

But she was in some ways an exception this year. Several Republican incumbents who tried a similar strategy of touting their earmarks were unsuccessful. Representative Charles Taylor, an eight-term Republican from North Carolina who lost his race, set up an interactive map on his re-election Web site to show the largess that he had directed to every county in his district.

"Click on the map to see how many of your taxpayer dollars Congressman Taylor has returned to your county,” it said, going on to detail items like $1 million for the creation of an Appalachian wine institute, $2 million to an astronomy center deep in the forests of Transylvania County and $3 million to a local school “to promote healthy childhood development and prevent violence.”

Mr. Taylor was chairman of the appropriations panel on the interior and environment, making him a spending “cardinal” in the House. His position may have led him to be caught off guard, said Mr. Ellis said.

“I think being an appropriator makes people lazy,” Mr. Ellis said. “They think they don’t have to do all the other important things for their district. It makes them feel bulletproof — ‘The voters wouldn’t be so stupid as to vote me out of office.’ ”

Mr. Taylor, who refused interview requests, lost his seat to Heath Shuler, who made excessive federal spending one of his campaign themes.

While people who oppose earmarks saw last month’s election as a rejection of the growing volume of special projects, others say that is the wrong way to interpret the results.

“Bringing federal projects home to a district helps an incumbent — period,” said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee. “Jeff Flake is totally misreading the results.”

He said Mr. Taylor and another member of the Appropriations Committee, Don Sherwood, Republican of Pennsylvania, had lost because of personal problems. Ms. Northup, he said, “was just in a bad district — it’s always been tight.”

He attributed Indiana’s three losses to poorly run campaigns.

But Mr. Flake cited his own state as proof that that pork does not ensure re-election. A fellow Arizona Republican member who had embraced earmarks, Representative J. D. Hayworth, lost his seat.

“In the end, the voters saw through it,” Mr. Flake said.

Mr. Forti attributed Mr. Hayworth’s loss to running a single-issue campaign, against immigration.

Still, Mr. Flake cites his own experience to back his point. Two years ago, Mr. Flake drew a strong opponent in the primary who rounded up several mayors in his district and made an issue of his refusal to tag earmarks for the home district.

Mr. Flake still won. This year, he was unopposed.

Anne’s Overreaching: Blogging Between the Quotes

"There's always a lot to learn about different parts of the state"

Specifically, conservative Republicans abhor RINO’s and pork barrel spending.

Bill Stone, a prominent Louisville Republican, said he thinks Fletcher will be hard to beat in the primary and that Northup's background could serve as a detriment to her across the state. "If Abraham Lincoln ran as an East Louisville suburbanite, it wouldn't be 100 percent positive even for him," he said. "I don't think it's a statewide political advantage."

I have admired Abraham Lincoln. I have studied Abraham Lincoln. I’ve read the text of his Gettysburg Address. Anne Northup is no Abraham Lincoln.

"As a Republican and as a Kentuckian, I'm answering this call to service because our party and the people all across Kentucky deserve an alternative to the current governor."

She is also answering the call because she is a career politician.

"She's wrong on the issues and wrong on the geography," Larry Forgy said. "She's better known in Floyd County, Indiana, (across the river from Louisville) than she is in Floyd County, Kentucky."

Correct Larry. She is known as a 2006 Congressional loser.

"Anne's going to play really well to the urban areas of the state, and I think Jeff Hoover will play very well to the more rural parts of the state and more outlying parts of the state," Richie Farmer said.

Hoover will play well? Despite right to life refusing to endorse him?

"It's not as though she's starting out cold. She's reasonably well known across the state from her time in Congress," Larry Sabato said. "Ernie Fletcher will create most of her vote for her. There are undoubtedly Republicans who are loyal to Fletcher, but a fair amount of Republicans actually want to win in November."

Yes we do. It’s clear Anne cannot win.

Mutiny on the Fletcher?

Ryan Alessi dissects the Governor’s staff shifting and sudden attention binge.

From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Faced with two challengers in the GOP primary now, Gov. Ernie Fletcher and his chief backers responded last week with an aggressive effort to snare Republicans' endorsements and expressed frustration with those who support his opponents. It was, to date, the most tangible sign of Fletcher's resolve to stave off a mutiny within the GOP.

"I've talked to a few friends who have gotten phone calls in the last week," said J. Todd Inman, an Owensboro Republican. "It's amazing that it didn't seem like there was a campaign in existence until a week ago, when a formidable opponent emerged."

Now it seems there's a mad scurry to get people's names on a piece of paper," he said, noting that endorsements don't always translate into votes. "That's the reason why we have secret ballots."

Good From the RINO?

Anne Northup good for Governor Fletcher? Vere Loqui highlights Northup’s November loss. He also criticizes her running mate and her supposed strength. However, he also chimes the familiar tunes of the anti-Fletcher media and the vast-McConnell wing conspiracy.

From Vere Loqui:

Much of the speculation over the Republican nomination for governor in Kentucky has centered on the threat Anne Northup poses to Gov. Ernie Fletcher's reelection. But Northup's candidacy is not a threat to the Fletcher administration; it's an opportunity. Ryan Alessi's article today, titled, "Fletcher Moves to Stop Mutiny," has a slightly negative slant on Fletcher, portraying the Fletcher campaign in a defensive posture.

Some national political wags are even saying the race is Northup's to lose. This is a mistaken assessment. Here's why: First, Northup is overrated. Although she's a competent campaigner, smart and determined, and she is from Jefferson County, the most populous county in the state, she apparently has little campaign apparatus outside the county. Larry Forgy is right: more people know Anne Northup "in Floyd County, Tennessee than in Floyd County, Kentucky."

In addition, some analysts are forgetting she lost there. Her chances to build an organization were dealt a blow recently when Republican legislators began lining up for Fletcher in numbers that must have surprised even Fletcher supporters. This certainly must have surprised Northup's campaign, which was probably expecting just the opposite. It was Northup's Bay of Pigs. Most of these commitments came from the Senate, but there would have been more from the House had not Jeff Hoover (R-Jamestown), Northup's running mate, been Minority Floor Leader there. Hoover's leadership position in the House will help the campaign's success outside Louisville, but most of that help will be in the fact that some support for Fletcher will be neutralized rather than that Hoover will get the necessary support from members.

But the election of Stan Lee (R-Lexington) to minority whip has to be seen not only as an indication of dissatisfaction with Hoover's get-along-with-the-Democrats approach that has characterized his tenure, but proof that there is a willingness among members to openly buck his leadership. This can't bode well for Northup. Second, Fletcher is underrated. He is the sitting governor after all. The power of his position was on display in the recent commitments the governor received from lawmakers and county judge-executives. In addition, Fletcher's chief activity over the last few months has been announcing projects county to county. Local officials don't forget such things. So if it is true that Fletcher's chances are better against Northup than the analyst's think, what is it that makes Northup's candidacy good for the governor's prospects?

First, attention. One of the problems Fletcher has had during his administration is the poor communication of his accomplishments. The Fletcher administration would probably say that this is due to an anti-Fletcher media, and this is probably at least partly true. The governor has not exactly gotten good breaks while in office either. But the Fletcher administration seems to keep its spokesmen on a short leash, and this hasn't helped. The Fletcher administration needs a Tony Snow--bad. The fact that Fletcher now is in a position of having to get out and campaign early is placing some much needed pressure on getting its message out.

The Governor's chief of staff, Stan Cave is the best spokesperson the administration has, but his adminstrative duties obviously place limits on what he has been able to do. The Northup candidacy has forced the administration into a position in which it must deploy Cave. Cave is not known to suffer fools glady, particularly those he feels inhabit the media. But Cave is everything Fletcher is not. Fletcher is not a fighter (despite his military background). Cave is. The sooner he is out with Larry Forgy battling for the administration, the better off it will be. The only time Fletcher has made the news over the past year is in regard to the hiring investigation. Northup's challenge to Fletcher will force the administration into changing that sooner than it otherwise would have.

The second reason the Northup candidacy helps is that it could provide the Fletcher administration with a victory it needs to shore up the public image of a less than competent administration that has developed over the past couple of years. Fletcher does not wield power very well. He doesn't understand the mystique of the governor's office. He comes out of his hospital room after an illness last year in his hospital pajamas. No governor who the importance of a public persona would address the cameras in his pajamas. No one should have seen Fletcher during that time. While he is seen when he shouldn't be, he often isn't seen when he should be.

When the Comair flight crashed at Bluegrass field last summer, the governor should have been on the spot giving a speech the next day putting the tragedy in perspective, much as Reagan did after the first shuttle crash--even if he had to fly back from Europe to do it. Instead, little was seen of him. These tendencies have caused a crisis of confidence among many people in Fletcher's leadership. But this perception could be changed if he is able to beat a viable opponent in the primary. Victories inspire confidence, and victories have been few and far between during Fletcher' tenure.

The failure to get Larry Forgy on the Republican state executive committee last year, for example, hurt--less because Forgy didn't make it than because it contributed to the perception that Fletcher is weak. It probably shouldn't have been attempted in the first place unless it was a sure thing. A victory over Northup, however, would provide Fletcher not only with a victory over Northup, but a victory over Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is said to run the state party, and is perceived to be invincible. McConnell is clearly behind Northup, even though he claims to be neutral in the primary.

Fletcher has been manhandled by McConnell's minions (such as Jack Richardson, head of the Jefferson County Republican Party). A Fletcher victory against Northup would change all that. If Fletcher is successful against Northup, he has an important victory in his pocket as he enters the general election--and he will have slain a much larger dragon than any he will face in the general election. If he can beat McConnell, he will have achieved something no Democrat has been able to accomplish so far. Most importantly, he will have changed public perception, which has always been his chief problem.