Feb 14, 2004
3 Days Out - The News
One of the nice things about being here in Kentucky is that you only have a go a few feet to pick up a copy of the Lexington Herald-Leader. Today’s edition brings news that an influential panel recommends that the VA Hospital serving central Kentucky veterans should remain open despite earlier plans to close the facility. Ben Chandler has long fought to keep the hospital open, a position only recently adopted by Alice Forgy Kerr. (You know, imitation and all that.)
This race between Chandler and Kerr is clearly on the minds of Kentucky voters, as every one of today’s letters to the editor dealt with Tuesday’s election.
Most were bluntly to-the-point.
Of course, Alice Forgy Kerr was not without her defenders. Two people wrote in support of Kerr. And one impassioned guest editorial defending Alice Forgy Kerr was written by ... Alice Forgy Kerr.
Basically, she says that she’s good at the very things that the Lexington Herald-Leader’s editorial on Feb. 11 cited as deficiencies in their strong endorsement of Ben Chandler. Of course, the editorial based its decision on persuasive evidence. Alice Forgy Kerr defends her record on the basis of, well, what she thinks about herself. Kentucky voters will be far better served by sticking with the evidence. (Click on link to see sampling of today’s letters to the editor)
A sampling of The Lexington Herald Leaders February 12, 2004 letters to the editor.
Sid Webb of Lexington wrote of Alice Forgy Kerr, ï¿½I give her an F for ‘works well with others.’ What has she really done that she can take credit for? We need somebody in Congress who has ideas of his own.”
James E. Turley of Mount Sterling wrote, ï¿½Alice Forgy Kerr says she voted by mistake for the greed bill to double her pension. She says she did not read the bill. Still she took no action to repeal the bill, probably trusting then-Attorney General Ben Chandler to kill it in court, which he did.”
Colmon Elridge of Richmond opined, ï¿½Unlike Alice Forgy Kerr, who with her Republican Party cohorts believes that election time means Kentucky is for sale, Chandler will make decisions for the good of all Kentuckians rich and poor, black and white.”
Readers also made clear their displeasure at the approach taken to Kentucky voters by Kerr’s Washington allies. Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert was soundly criticized for his attempt to tie aid to Kentucky farmers to Kerr’s election. Wrote Jean Pival of Lexington, ï¿½He [Hastert] may call this politics, but I call it what it is: blackmail.”
On the other hand, many readers gave a ringing endorsement for Ben Chandler. ï¿½In an equal choice between the two major candidates, there is no comparison. Chandler has more experience, more capability and more apparent concern for his fellow Kentuckians,” wrote Deloris Cook of Georgetown.
Wrote David Fitts of Lexington, ï¿½On Tuesday I’m voting to send Chandler to Washington to represent my interests, the interests of my family and all other average folks who have to make a living here.”
All in all, the letters showed that Kentucky voters would agree with the view expressed by Gregory Spurlock of Lexington, ï¿½The 6th District deserves a candidate who is a leader, not a follower. Ben Chandler deserves your vote.”
|Tweets by @dccc|