With any luck Ernie can spend his Christmas retirement contemplating his present.

Hats off to you Sir... :thumb:

 

Though I disagree with the sentiment, that was a good one. :lol:

Obviously his changed stance on gambling was political. However, whoever advises him politically or whoever is running his campaign has really messed this one up. His initial stance 'personally against it, won't oppose a vote' was the perfect political stance. It left him plenty of latitude to attack the values associated with casino gaming, attack Beshear for being in the pocket of casinos, banking the economy on a very inflated revenue figure, et al, as well as retain those Republicans who are probably flirting with a Beshear vote because they would like to see gambling.

 

As an incumbent governor who has garnered the stigma of being unethical with the merit hiring indictments, he’s going to fight an uphill battle in that department, so attacking the immorality of gambling is not going to win him terribly much outside of evangelicals. One thing he has done well has been his fiscal restraint and the economy seems to be humming along smoothly in the state. I think NKY has been especially pleased with the money they have received, which is a stark contrast to the amount they received under Patton. But, I think NKY, as a whole, want casinos and are mellowed out in their zeal for re-electing him with his incessant anti-casino message. I feel his campaign would be much better served lauding the economy, pointing to the fiscal irresponsibility of banking all economic results on $500 million income from casinos, while still being able to speak to speak of the ills of gaming to staunch, anti-casino conservatives and simultaneously pointing to pro-gaming Republicans that he won’t hinder a referendum on the issue.

Obviously his changed stance on gambling was political. However, whoever advises him politically or whoever is running his campaign has really messed this one up. His initial stance 'personally against it, won't oppose a vote' was the perfect political stance. It left him plenty of latitude to attack the values associated with casino gaming, attack Beshear for being in the pocket of casinos, banking the economy on a very inflated revenue figure, et al, as well as retain those Republicans who are probably flirting with a Beshear vote because they would like to see gambling.

 

As an incumbent governor who has garnered the stigma of being unethical with the merit hiring indictments, he’s going to fight an uphill battle in that department, so attacking the immorality of gambling is not going to win him terribly much outside of evangelicals. One thing he has done well has been his fiscal restraint and the economy seems to be humming along smoothly in the state. I think NKY has been especially pleased with the money they have received, which is a stark contrast to the amount they received under Patton. But, I think NKY, as a whole, want casinos and are mellowed out in their zeal for re-electing him with his incessant anti-casino message. I feel his campaign would be much better served lauding the economy, pointing to the fiscal irresponsibility of banking all economic results on $500 million income from casinos, while still being able to speak to speak of the ills of gaming to staunch, anti-casino conservatives and simultaneously pointing to pro-gaming Republicans that he won’t hinder a referendum on the issue.

If he can motivate them and land their votes, they put him in office before and GW into the White House twice. That might be enough.

My guess is he had more important priorities at the time, but since Beshear was kind enough to tee the casino gambling issue up so conveniently, ol' Ernie is obliged to go ahead and kick it through the uprights.

 

 

 

 

 

From a purely political standpoint, this is the kind of happening every politician prays for... Beshear delivered an early Christmas gift to Ernie by making this such a prominent piece of his platform.

 

Hmmmm … I believe your Uncle Karl would have his operatives refer to that as a "flip-flop" on Ernie's part.

Hmmmm … I believe your Uncle Karl would have his operatives refer to that as a "flip-flop" on Ernie's part.

At least uncle's last name is "Rove" not "Marx"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If that is indeed what he has done, we should se a significant bump in his polls as well as a warming to Erinie by the Courier-Journal and the Herald-Leader... they traditionally back the biggest flip-floppers in any election. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You gotta admit those were pretty quick... :thumb:

At least uncle's last name is "Rove" not "Marx"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If that is indeed what he has done, we should se a significant bump in his polls as well as a warming to Erinie by the Courier-Journal and the Herald-Leader... they traditionally back the biggest flip-floppers in any election. :lol:

 

 

 

You gotta admit those were pretty quick... :thumb:

 

:laugh:

 

You're killing me … :lol:

At least uncle's last name is "Rove" not "Marx"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If that is indeed what he has done, we should se a significant bump in his polls as well as a warming to Erinie by the Courier-Journal and the Herald-Leader... they traditionally back the biggest flip-floppers in any election.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You gotta admit those were pretty quick... :thumb:

Rove , Marx .What's the difference . They both have espoused failed policies .

Rove , Marx .What's the difference . They both have espoused failed policies .

The policies Rove has espoused haven't failed yet, but it sure seems like there are some politicians working awfully hard to make sure they do fail.

This thread has gotten too far off topic.