The Editor's Notebook

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette

Friday, June 18, 2010, 6 p.m. – Like most conservatives, I knew this day would come: The day when even the most liberal of President Barack Obama’s supporters would reach the same conclusion I did two years ago – the man who awed audiences with his rhetoric is little more than a paper tiger.

Left-wingers believed his rhetoric; they believed what he said he stood for. They believed when he said he would end the Iraq war. They believed that he would be a president who would transcend race. They believed he would lead our country into a new era.

Following his long-overdue “take charge” Oval Office address this week on the Gulf oil spill, even his most feverish supporters couldn’t ignore his tepid and too-little, too-late move.

In Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal column posted today, she notes that

” …. Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech “profoundly underwhelming,” a “feeble call to action.” Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech “vapid.” Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked “awkward and robotic.” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann famously said “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.” Chris Matthews scored “a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.” Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama’s well-written peroration: “It’s nice but, again, how? Where was the ‘how’ in this speech when the nation is crying out for ‘how’?”

“How?” indeed. The answer to “why” remains elusive, too, and Obama’s speech lacked that detail. If the blowout had happened a week ago, I could understand the reason the “how” and “why” were lacking. Two months into the nation’s largest oil spill the president should provide the public with decisive leadership and answers, instead of empty rhetoric about making BP pay.

At this point in his presidency, any blame that Obama tries to throw at his predecessor only makes him look weaker. Blaming the Bush administration helps fill time during an Oval Office address, but it is of little comfort to the people of the Gulf whose livelihoods are vanishing.

The truth is that with any president, some things are out of his or her control. Obama can’t order the ruptured well to heal itself. But his handling of the crisis adds fodder to those who believe that both here and abroad the president’s leadership is both inept and ineffective.

Obama has notably traveled the world apologizing for America’s deeds and misdeeds. He seems uncomfortable being at the head of the world’s most powerful superpower; you almost feel like he thinks America is “no big deal.” He has continued the unprecedented move of bowing to other world leaders, most notably while visiting China. His speeches from abroad seem to always have a tone of being critical of his own country as a talking point. His speeches have demonstrated weakness and baffled foreign leaders.

You no longer need to visit conservative news sites to find opinions that are critical of our Commander-in-Chief. The Mainstream Media – as liberal as ever – has been forced to recognize that the president continues to make missteps and his leadership has stumbled. Under Obama, the United States no longer appears to be a reliable ally (just ask Britain and Israel), and seems more interested in making concessions to those who oppose us (Iran, North Korea and Cuba).

There’s a hug difference between running for president and serving in the office; I don’t fault Obama for breaking his campaign promises regarding the closure of Gitmo or ending the Iraq war. In fact, I suspect as president, he’s been forced to face geopolitical realities of the world in both situations.

As criticism of the president continues and as his job approval rating slides, more Democrats seem emboldened to talk of supporting a different candidate for president in 2012. Democrats who supported Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president may find new friends who believe that she really was the most qualified Democrat in the 2008 race. With Vice President Joe Biden’s rumored exit from the ticket, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Clinton added to the 2012 ticket as his replacement.

Like President Jimmy Cater — who was saddled with the Iranian hostage situation — Obama may find there is no “right” way to deal with the unfolding disaster in the Gulf. Republicans are waiting in the wings to make big gains in the next two years. Nature abhors a vacuum, and such is also the case in politics when strength and leadership are absent. The president has two years to determine by his actions if he will indeed be a one-term president.

-30-

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette

The eligibility of Phillip Mouser, a Democratic candidate for Nelson County Clerk, to run as a candidate in the May primary is undoubtedly one of the hottest issues of this election cycle. It’s an issue that’s been quietly stewing since he filed as a candidate in January.

Having talked a number of times with Mouser, I find him to be a pleasant, earnest and credible candidate for Nelson county clerk. But soon after he filed as a candidate, the questions began. The first thing I heard was that Mouser lived in Hodgenville, and his candidacy paperwork he filed on Jan. 21, 2010 reflected the Bardstown address of his girlfriend. Was Mouser skirting the law? Did he meet the residency requirements to run for an office in Nelson County?

In today’s issue of the local newspaper, Mouser responds to an article published Wednesday by Kentucky Standard Editor Lisa Tolliver which brought to light the questions related to Mouser’s candidacy. And what I found most interesting about Mouser’s letter is not what his letter says, but what it does not say.

For starters, Mouser’s letter does not dispute any of the facts laid out in Tolliver’s article.

The truth is that Tolliver’s article was the first “official” source to reveal that Mouser lived in Hodgenville up until late last year. In his public statements (and on the recent TV debate), Mouser has used careful wording to walk that thin line between truth and misdirection; it is a statement he repeats in today’s letter to the editor: “I have lived all but seven years of my life, excluding college, in Nelson County.” That’s a true statement, but in the interest of full disclosure, isn’t it as accurate to say that he lived the last seven years in LaRue County?

It is easy to see why Mouser would prefer to use the careful wording of his statement; it makes it less obvious that he lived out of the county seven years and only moved  back to Nelson County last October. The two statements are true, but let’s call it what it is: In a 12-way race for county office, admitting you just moved back to your home county after seven years is a political handicap. If Mouser had been more direct in his earlier statements, would we be discussing this as an issue with just over a week to go before the election?

Mouser’s letter complains about the newspaper’s 300-word limit on letters to the editor (ironically, using 58 of his allotted words to do so). In his letter, he states there was “no sinister master plan afoot” regarding his candidacy; but his letter turns around and suggests that perhaps the other candidates see him as the leading candidate, and have their own sinister “May Madness” plan to bring down his candidacy.

Careful parsing of the English language isn’t a crime; its pretty much life as usual in the world of politics and putting a certain “spin” on the issues. And perhaps Mouser is correct; sinister plot or not, I suspect the other candidates — in an issue of simple fairness — probably felt Mouser’s carefully worded statement was an unfair way of obscuring the fact he lived in LaRue County until October 2009.

Will there be a legal challenge to determine if he meets the residency requirement to be the Democratic nominee for Nelson County Clerk? I can only assume that remains to be seen.

One final note that’s not been mentioned is Mouser’s violation of state law not related to election campaigns. By his own admission, Mouser violated KRS 186.540 – the statute that requires all Kentucky residents to change the address on their drivers’ license within 10 days after it has changed. Mouser admits he moved to his parents’ home in October 2009 and changed his drivers’ license in January 2010. While it’s a minor point, it is still the law.

As is the case in many election cycles, the issues that arise often have little to do with an individual’s true ability to serve in the office. The question of Mouser’s residency are partly of his own making; he chose to tell a version of the truth that would be the least damaging politically. In the end, that decision may be more damaging than the simple truth.

-30-

By JIM BROOKS
The Nelson County Gazette

The value of what exactly constitutes “news” for any media outlet is always something of a conundrum, a moving target on the best of days. With that said — and having attended my fair share of budget meetings (where what’s “news” is typically decided), I know how diverse opinions among editors and writers can be.

Looking at today’s Kentucky Standard (actually, looking at the news posted on its web site), I expected to see a front-page story about Nelson Fiscal Court. I wasn’t disappointed as I found the story, but the best part — the “Hey Martha!” moment in the fiscal court meeting — was buried 15 paragraphs into the story! To quote my daughter’s text messages, “WTF?”

The buried news that has people talking was the ongoing flap that Jack Hurst brought into the Nelson Fiscal Court meeting yesterday, as well as on March 16th. In this case, where this part of the story was placed boils down to differing views on what constitutes news. In my book, when the county judge executive and a citizen are in a public squabble — and the judge adjourns the meeting to shut the citizen off — that has “story lead” written all over it.

One of the maxims in journalism (at least the ones that existed when I was studying journalism at WKU) was a very simple rule: “Conflict makes good copy.” Former WKU professor Jim Highland used to pace back and forth at the front of the classroom while admonishing his students to lead the story with the best stuff first. Always, always hide the boring stuff, he would tell us. My class even attended a Warren Fiscal Court meeting to help us understand how to find the “good stuff” in often very routine meetings. Enough of the history lesson.

The story about the Nelson Fiscal Court meeting begins (or “leads”) with the EMS service getting a bariatric lift for an ambulance. It’s an interesting detail, true enough. But when the judge executive shuts down fiscal court over a dispute with a local businessman, I can’t help but think that’s the better stuff. That’s the stuff that people will be talking about over coffee at Mammy’s Kitchen in the morning; they won’t be marveling over the new bariatric lifts.

Now you can argue that giving the lead to Mr. Hurst only gives him encouragement, or it gives him recognition, etc. But Mr. Hurst is what people will be talking about, and burying that part of the story down 15-paragraphs — when you know darn well it’s a huge interest item — misses the mark in my book. Now if I only owned a newspaper … (sigh)

COPY EDITOR ON HOLIDAY. OK, OK, I admit I have absolutely NO room to point out others’ errors in print or online, but in the same fiscal court story I found this gem:

The cost of retrofitting the ambulance with the lift is $6,380. There are also products such as a wench, which can be used to aid in the transfer, but Prewitt said he believes the lift is a safer and better route.

Having made this exact mistake myself makes it easy for me to spot. What the writer meant was winch, a motor/gearbox combination used to pull or lift heavy objects. A wench, as illustrated by the accompanying photo, probably won’t be very useful in helping EMTs get patients into the ambulance, though I expect it would improve morale for those being transported.

-30-

By JIM BROOKS
The Nelson County Gazette

Tomorrow evening, the Bardstown City Council will have the second reading of an ordinance that will ban smoking in public places. The ban has ignited considerable controversy on both sides of the issue, though from my perspective, there’s quite a significant silent majority who no one has heard from.

And for many of us, the issue is not at all about smoking. We understand and acknowledge the health risks. The issue is rights and individual liberty. It’s about stripping business owners of the right to determine how they will run their own business. It’s about penalizing citizens who wish to use a product that — despite its health effects — remains a legal product.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of the mayor and the council members who voted in favor of the ban. But taking this stand during an election year, the ban’s supporters may find themselves learning a lesson about “The Rule of Unintended Consequences.”

While most people in this silent majority don’t smoke and don’t like being around smokers, they are also a bit rankled to see a special interest group come waltzing into town and demanding — and getting — action on their pet issue. To the Bardstown residents who have had to deal with chronic problems (drainage, water and sewer to name a few), it must rather disappointing to know that the council has taken up the issue  and has taken action, while their concerns in too many cases remain unresolved.

But that truly is the nature of how a special interest group operates: Identify the problem (in this case, smoking), then flood elected representatives with their “facts” (anti-smoking information), then hand them an easy solution (a boilerplate template of an ordinance that will “fix” the problem). In addition to all the health benefits the smoking ban proponents tout, approving the ordinance also makes the special interest group go away, and I suspect the mayor and council have had all they care to stomach of the smoking ban.

The council members who voted for the ban — Roland Williams, John Royalty and Tommy Reed, accompanied by Mayor Dick Heaton — have listened to the comments from residents and voted in favor of it anyway. While each has his reason to vote in favor, I trust that all of them are aware of the rapidly changing political environment we’re in right now. Interest in politics and issues is at very high levels and there’s a definite interest in pushing back against government’s reaching into private and personal issues — which includes smoking bans.

I have no doubt the smoking ban will be approved Tuesday night. It will make for an interesting summer as we approach the candidate filing deadline in August: Will the council’s smoking ban prompt an outbreak of additional candidates for city council?

An interesting part of this is the fact that the council voted a number of years ago to do away with the requirement for a primary in the council race if more than a certain number of candidates filed for a seat on the council. Should a dozen — or more — candidates throw their proverbial hats into the ring, the results in November could be very, very interesting to watch.

-30-

By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette

Monday, Feb. 22, 2010 – I wasn’t surprised recently to read that my liberal friends on the editorial board of the local newspaper support a smoking ban now being considered by Bardstown City Council.  Editorial boards tend to rally for “causes” they believe as a group will be progressive, save lives and improve public health — admittedly, all admirable goals.

The editorial states the obvious and warns of the dangers of secondhand smoke to those who breathe it. But it also fails to point out the ban falls short of protecting public health to the degree its supporters (and the editorial board) would like to have others believe. Why? Because the vast majority of public places in Bardstown are already smoke-free.

Had such a ban been proposed 20 years ago, I would have probably been in favor of it. Cigarette smoking was the rule rather than the exception. My parents, both of whom were three-pack-a-day smokers, both died of smoking-related cancers. Living for 18 years in the same house, I know all too well the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.

Thanks to years of education about the dangers of smoking and changing public tastes, roughly 75 percent of public places in Bardstown are today smoke-free. The decision to go smoke-free has been left to property owners and business owners. The businesses who have gone smoke-free understand it was in their best interest to cater to their customers wants; that’s just good business.

The remaining businesses who allow smoking do so by their own choice. Why? If you look at the business owners who spoke at the recent public hearing, the reason is clear — their customers want a place to smoke. I think all of the businesses who had a representative speak were bars or restaurants with bars — both businesses that attract cigarette smokers.

At the hearing I heard the passionate supporters of the ban describe the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke. Pediatricians, family doctors and the county schools superintendent all spoke about the impact of smoking on health — particularly its impact on our youth. Superintendent Dr. Jan Lantz implored the council to approve a smoking ban to protect the health of our future generations.

Hard arguments to refute. Or are they?

The truth that surfaced during the hearing was the true danger — and primary source of exposure — of secondhand smoke to youth does NOT come from the remaining businesses in Bardstown that allow customers to smoke. Youth exposure to secondhand smoke is primarily from parents and family members who smoke in the home and their cars. The ban would not affect smoking in those instances, nor protect our youth from secondhand smoke.

When you think of the businesses in town that permit smoking, I find it doubtful that the “epidemic of secondhand smoke” can be traced to our local youth crowding into bars and restaurants where they suffer its effects. But those businesses are the ones who will lose the right to allow their patrons to smoke if the council approves the ban.

So why the push for a ban? Because a special interest group decided to target the city of Bardstown after failing nearly two years ago to get a countywide smoking ban. Without the push by the members of this special interest group, there would be no ban discussed.

The council has much to consider: Do the members of the special interest group really speak for the majority of Bardstown citizens? With most businesses already smoke-free, is the ban just a “feel good” measure, a badge of honor so the city can promote its own progressiveness? What about the rights of those who smoke, as well as the right of the business owners to determine if they will allow smoking?

At the beginning of the public hearing about the smoking ban, a gentleman brought to the council’s table a large glass bowl and set it before Mayor Dick Heaton. The bowl was empty; however the sides of the bowl were coated with a milky translucent coating of some sort. When the man later spoke, the bowl helped him make his point: With all of the environmental issues facing the city, there are bigger fish to fry than wrestling with a smoking ban. The glass bowl was his Exhibit A; days earlier the bowl had been filled with water from the City of Bardstown water treatment plant. The water evaporated, leaving behind the very visible deposits on the side and bottom of the glass bowl. The man suggested the council take  on existing water, sewer and air quality issues rather than focus on an issue of limited benefit.

So moving forward, the supporters of the ban all say they have science on their side; they can quote studies and research ad nauseum about smoking and its dangers. No one is arguing those facts. But what will a smoking ban accomplish? Other than giving a group of activists a “win,” just who are the winners here? The restaurants who fear they’ll lose business if they can’t offer their patrons one of the few remaining places to smoke? The city council, who will have bragging rights about how progressive they are?

The more important question may be identifying who the losers are if the council approves the ban. These include the business owners, who lose the right to set their own standards for acceptable behavior (at least regarding smoking); the smokers, who are have the right to smoke in public stripped from them; and lastly, the citizens of Bardstown. A ban on any behavior that is legal, using a legal product lawfully — in the name of  “everyone’s health” — forces the smoking minority to submit to the tyranny of the majority.

As a non-smoker, I do not knowingly go to a restaurant that allows smoking. That’s my choice, and that’s the choice of everyone who wishes not to be around smokers. The proposed ban doesn’t improve the freedom we have as individuals to make our own choices; it only penalizes those whose lifestyle is not approved by a special interest group.

For the Bardstown City Council, the unmentioned elephant in the room is the fact they are considering this ban in an election year. The office of mayor and all six council seats will be on the November ballot. Will those on the council who support a ban find their political aspirations relegated to the ash can? Stay tuned ….

-30-