Flying High.

Resentment and Bitterness, be gone. While there was plenty to go around nationwide, I was in a snit about UNDemocratic behavior. I didn't react much to the unfair hand dealt to Bernie by the DNC because it didn't surprise me . But I was mad as hell in the aftermath when those who screamed the loudest for revolution--sold out to the corruption and sabotage of an obviously-broken system.

Please ask why we didn't have more viable choices. Ask and ask often.

After I finished laughing at Saturday Night Live and the many times that they portrayed the possibility of a President Trump as preposterous, I found myself resenting how easily we allow a ratings-hungry media to not only tap into--but to basically conduct an Election. Don't get me wrong: I'll probably watch Kate McKinnon as Hillary at least once a week for the rest of my life. But I realized that, more often than not, SNL and most media outlets came across as smug and cocky on the side of a candidate who had neither the timing nor the love of the public that affords one to be smug and cocky. I realized that when we spent all of the time that we did laughing at Trump (and again, don't get me wrong: I see why), that translated to making fun of people who wanted different options than what they were presented. You had to be a bigot and a sexist to vote for the guy--or to vote against Hillary. No ifs, ands or buts. End of story.

The American public could handle being called stupid--god knows they'd heard it enough over the years--but they drew the line at being told they were honorary members of the KKK if they differed in their opinion. Just like Trump called out a differently-abled reporter, Progressives called out that American who happened to be more concerned with their wallet than social issues--and basically told them that they obviously wanted every minority eradicated from Earth. And that's one of the many reasons why Trump will be inaugurated tomorrow instead of Hillary: it was easy to vote against not only a candidate, but a group of people who so openly despise you for something you are not, even if there is guilt by association. Spite sucks. The Left movement is often associated with throwing paint on fur coats, anarchy and setting Hummers on fire. I consider myself a Left-leaning individual, but I wouldn't participate in any of those things. Not every single Trump supporter should have been marked as an idiot or a skinhead. Voters are going to address their own economic situation and/or fears--be they realistic or imaginary--and place their own needs first. That's how Equality, Climate Change and other issues tend to take a backseat--not always because of a deep-rooted hatred. Did ignorance, sexism, racism and homophobia play a part in the divisiveness of this election? You bet it did. But did every Trump supporter go to the polls for him because they hate all minorities? Did every Clinton supporter go to the polls for her because they supported the slimy way in which she was elevated to the nomination?

From the Democrats, I would've liked to have seen someone with the youth and Washington-outsider status of Martin O'Malley and the centrism of Bill Clinton, circa 1992 with just a touch--and I mean a sliver--of Bernie Sanders populism and a good serving of Elizabeth Warren's genius. We didn't have that in 2016. I don't know who that person was or under what rock they were/are hiding--but I know they exist and we need to find them by 2019.

From the GOP, John Kasich would've been the best bet--although I would've been more likely to vote for former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. Both of these men were too nice for the Republicans who were in charge this year; too moderate, too sensible.

In a nutshell, both of these parties allowed themselves to be hijacked by their own extremes. America is not Conservative, nor is it Liberal. We are a moderate country. And when you nominate the likes of Trump, Clinton or flirt with Bernie, you scare the hell out of most moderates. Voters were forced into one of the nastiest choices ever--and the divided result is obvious. I didn't make the rules, folks. And unless we have the balls to change them, this is the hand that we're dealt.

So, come 2019/20 and a Draft Hillary or Draft Bernie movement emerges, don't be surprised when I start campaigning loudly against both. And as much as I respect you, Senator Warren, you stay home, too. If we run another far-Left candidate against Trump--no matter how much we like Her/him, we're setting ourselves up for the same failure of 2016. Websters tells us that the definition of insanity is attempting the same idea over and over again and expecting different results. Besides: let's let the cat out of the bag here: you don't like Hillary, anyway. You never did. Not in '08--and only in '16 because you were told to and she sounded better than the alternative. Screw that. You deserve better and so do I. Plus, just like Bernie, all of the players in 2016 will definitely be too damned old then (while I refuse to accept the labels 'bigot' or 'sexist', when it comes to the health of our nation, I'll certainly accept 'ageist'.) Fresh, non-career politicians, people. Start the search. Go.

As for fears surrounding the GOP/conservative takeover, please calm down for a moment to look at our history. We have a long torrent of progress at our advantage, even as the pendulum swings every four-to-eight years. In 2000, the election was on the heels of one of the most arguably Liberal administrations up to that time. In 2008, we traded in one of the most Conservative presidents for an even more Liberal chief. And here we are today. Just as the 'Defense of Marriage Act' resulted in civil unions followed by eventual Marriage Equality, just like the increased segregation of the fifties led to the Civil Rights Act of '64--we can only regress so much before we return to natural progression. To be sure, there will be legislation that with which we emphatically disagree. Success was so ripe in some areas of the Obama Administration that the Election took some of us off guard: we forgot that we don't always win.

But we eventually did--and we eventually will. We will not get there by dismissing differing opinions as stupid. We will not showcase our Will, our Worth and our points of view by reacting more to propaganda than to real issues. POTUS #44 didn't get kicked out of office after four years of people claiming he was an evil, golf-course-living Muslim born in Kenya--and POTUS #45 won't be kicked out in four years because you scream how he's a Twitter-happy, money-grubbing tangerine with a trashy spouse. As difficult as it is in theory, I really agree with our outgoing First Lady: "When they go low, we go high." Issues, people. Issues.

Some of you wont want to understand this, but I continue to wish President Trump the best. Again: I didn't vote for him. I don't care for him and I think he's in way over his head. But I'll always wish each President the best as the task of governing our nation is daunting and not for the faint of heart. George W. Bush was my President. Barack Obama was my President. I'm giving Trump the chance to do things right--and it's my duty and yours as a voting, taxpaying American to sure as hell let him know when he isn't.

In the meantime, four important things that I commit to work on when and where possible:

**-Look for socially-moderate-to-left, fiscally-moderate, non-career politician
     candidates, especially those who can contribute to shattering glass ceilings.
     Remember that I must evaluate their positions on all issues--not just one or two.
**-Help my fellow citizens to understand that their decades-old political parties
     are as loyal to your interests as they are to their donors.
**-Open dialogues and remain civil with those willing to do the same.
**-Be more discerning in where I receive my information.

In 2017, that's the change I can believe in.

From Party-Line to Conscience-Voting: The Evolution of an American Voter

My conscience this November might be called a switch to the Right. Others might call it a far Leftist move. And several will say that it's absurdly moronic. That is what makes our country what it is: the right to be wrong. At the end of the day, I just have to be okay with my decision. Again--my decision.

As recently as three years ago, I would have never seriously considered voting outside the Democratic Party. It was never a loyalty thing with me; the Dems' platform mirrored most of my beliefs. They still do. Regrettably, the same cannot be said for the way in which they and the Republican Party operates:

I am tired of the millionaire donors. 

I am tired of the lobbyist ties.
I am fatigued by a broken government.

I am exhausted by this two-party system.

I am choosing to limit participation within it.

Admittedly, 2016 is not the best year for me to have a conscience conversion. Some friends on Facebook remind me of that daily. Some of the rhetoric is hardcore: I am apparently inciting a second Holocaust by entertaining a vote for anyone but Hillary. Voting for anyone else renders a vote for Trump and I'll have to live with that for the rest of my life; I am dooming my country. Ironically, these are the same fear-mongering tactics utilized by the candidate whom these voters despise. Trust me, folks: my first election was Bush vs. Gore. I realize the ramifications of a vote--or a lack thereof.
As a then-nineteen-year old looking for someone to blame, I could not and did not want to understand what Ralph Nader and his supporters were doing. Although I've shown up fifteen years late, I get it now.

On November 8, I plan on casting my vote for the Woman who is uniquely qualified to lead our country in a transparent, non-dynastic, non-corporate-leaning fashion: Dr. Jill Stein.

You might think that this the part of the show where I denounce Hillary Clinton, the person. Not gonna happen. In terms of ideology alone, I like Hillary. I like her qualifications. But I also think that her ties to a broken system run too deep and in being chained to a party, I do not view her as a transparent candidate. Being a fervent student of American History also contributes to my opinion. Our Presidency was never intended to be a dynasty, the office being held in a trust for sons, possibly brothers, possibly spouses. In addition, I have a sincere problem with electing anyone approaching seventy years of age to the highest office in our country--a country with an ever-changing energy, in dire need of fresh approaches and ideas. In fairness, Stein isn't much younger than Hillary but her views and lack of system-conformity mirror what our country needs to examine. If you find me an ageist due to my last sentences, that's because the shoe fits. Reagan didn't belong in office nor Dole nor McCain or Sanders. Speaking of Bernie, as much as he spouted revolution, I never bought that a 74-year old lifelong politician would be a true agent for change. He never fully convinced me. Because even if it were true, he is still part of the Democratic Party and would have never left that army to go solo on so many near-impossible ideas. Bernie was an easy sell for a lot of people--a lot of people who hadn't been paying attention or chose to ignore the maddening stalemate of which President Obama has been held prisoner for the past seven years--and for which we all have suffered.

Mainstream candidate supporters might read that last paragraph as horrific cynicism and a vote for Trump but I view my decision as just the opposite: I am eagerly claiming my right to vote for whom I choose, ignoring the "lesser of two evils" mentality and voting for a candidate in whom I believe to be the best choice for my country. If that isn't Patriotic, Progressive or Democratic, I do not know what is. I highly resent the fact that in a country of 320 + million people, I am instructed by society and my government to choose between just two candidates in a political arena which has grown to benefit those who had that arena built on the backs of the labor and intellectual weaknesses of the American electorate. That stops with me--and that's the beginning of how it stops completely.

And what if my vote does contribute to a President Trump? Perhaps we need Donald Trump to awaken and unite an apathetic nation who turns a weary, blind eye to mass shootings and business as usual. Perhaps his actions would prompt an otherwise frustratingly partisan government to come together, to defeat him and his ideas for the greater good. To perhaps give hope to a cynical nation by reaffirming the way our government is suppose to function. Besides, do you really think that any person with such a narcissistic interest in his own business ventures cares about systematically changing the government? Please. I do not support Trump's candidacy for a moment, but my conscience should not be jailed and my opportunities as a voting citizen held hostage just to ensure that he isn't elected. The very message that we should vote for someone at any cost to defeat someone else means that we hold our Fears higher than we hold our Democracy. We are not protecting Democracy by voting against a candidate on that merit--we are feeding into its demise because that mentality strips us of our right to choose. No candidate--no party--should hold that power over anyone.

Notice that I am not extolling the virtues of Dr. Stein. Notice that I am not slamming Hillary or Donald. Much. I am slamming the system--and they just happen to be part of it. As voters have very short memories, I will remind people that this is the same broken system that Bernie and Trump supporters alike are rallying against.

I should not and will not tell you how to vote--and thank you for not impressing that upon me, either.
But I am a piss-poor citizen if I quietly allow society to listen to the same feel-good-speeches with the same tired promises and rhetoric that blinds us to the same broken realities and inequalities of our situation. To my loyal, two-party system friends, I do ask you to listen to your conscience and block out the "have to" and "no choice" rubbish that we are being fed. To my friends on either side who have been advocates for revolution, I am not telling you anything new.

I am reminding you of what you want.

The Blame and The Remnants...

No mention of my friend in the headlines today. It has only been two weeks since he and forty-eight others were taken out in the U.S.' worst mass shooting. We Americans have continued to do what we do best: we look for something to distract us. We're back to Donald Trump and whether or not Richard Simmons is still Richard Simmons. I have often heard it said that the 'media' distracts us, but I have come to believe that we choose the distraction. If it's more pleasant and sunnier than what we're dealing with now, the media is all too happy to give us what we need. We're just self-medicating by subject-surfing.

"What's Sandy Hook?" 

I heard that question the other day from someone who follows the news but had forgotten about twenty or so kids who were assassinated by a madman at their elementary school in December 2012. I do not blame him completely. I blame American apathy. And I am a party to that blame. Unless you've been a tireless voice for violence awareness, the blame is yours also.

A helpless defeatist resides in my home today. Ten years ago, he was advocating for everything from LGBT Equality to Global Peace. Fifteen years ago, he was a passionate teen, hellbent on tackling the issues that faced mankind.Today, the man is--as a popular song lyric goes, "not broken, just bent." His outlook is bent to the point of breaking, but eternal hope keeps him going. He looks at world events with resignation, a weariness brought on by years of activism, years of caring when others did not, years of social and political upheaval. This defeatist feels empowered to do nothing just yet as the murders are still raw. He questions his faith in his country--and has had plenty of justifiable reasons to question that of his government. And so he sits. And he waits.

So I sit. And I wait.

I wait for the next murders. I know they are coming. I wait for the description of the assault rifle. I wait to see the memorials to the victims. I wait to see the grandstanding by our politicians who cry for change. I wait for the silence from the NRA. I wait for the prayers from a people whose Christ rallied against violence. I wait for another eloquent yet predictable speech from my President. And in waiting for all of these things, I must accept that I am partially to blame for all of these things.

In Central Florida, a woman who bore only one child no doubt faces sleepless nights and days of anguish from the forced acceptance that she will never hear her only child's voice again. In Connecticut, a little girl gets balloons marking the anniversary of when she was born ten years before. But the balloons are flying high above the little girl's tombstone--a reminder to all of an innocent life taken all too soon.

Today, I carry on. I work, I laugh, I eat, I sleep, I converse about topics not related to murder. But the remnants of murder are staying with me just below the surface.

And I hope the remnants of murder stay with you as well. 

The Lessons of a Deflated Political Junkie.

2016. An election year. A dozen or more candidates from both parties vie for attention and acknowledgement; the obviousness of their desire making the spectacle both painful and comical. The media is having a field day--as it should.

A political junkie should be enjoying this. Four and eight years ago, I was.

I am unsure where this disgruntlement of a voter began--but I will remove one assumption from the list: it has virtually nothing to do with President Obama. I do not for one moment regret my votes in 2008 or 2012. As Conservatives would gleefully claim, I never felt swindled or bought by Obama's Administration. I did not always agree with his decisions. But I did resent the times when he, like most politicians, was being influenced by corporate campaign donations. Even more resentful of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, my distrust is no longer silent; my cynicism no longer buried behind a faux front--the last attempt at claiming that things are suppose to be this way.

No Hillary. I am incredibly proud of Secretary Clinton's accomplishments; her Martha Stewartesque way of fighting through challenges--especially from men who don't like to lose. She would probably be an excellent President. Unfortunately, she is part of a very old, very broken system.You do not spend 40 years in the political spectrum, attempt to continue a dynasty, allow greedy corporations to float your rise to the top--and then step to the podium as the maestro of the systems rebuke.

I look to Bernie and I should be relieved. No corporate tax dollars funding his campaign, whose platform is a testimony to the enviable workings of places like Denmark and Sweden. Free tuition, making the wealthy pay their fair share--how does that not sound good? And then I think about Senator Sanders' lifetime of service in our Congress. I look at his failure to collaborate and question how he would begin the debate to bring about these necessary reforms and how he would effectively buck the system that has afforded him political stature. I look at the Senator and question not only whether he would--but whether he should be in office in the first place. Electing anyone seven years from their 80th birthday to one of the most stressful offices in the land is lunacy. Not only does the man sound tired--he looks it. And if that makes me an ageist, I am an ageist. At age 69 upon her would-be election, Hillary is in the same boat. We are not well-served when we elect aging leaders. If the risk of lacking fresh ideas isn't a problem, the lack of stamina is (i.e. Reagan and the still-ongoing debate of whether or not the onset of Alzheimer's began during his last term.) Figuring out my disenchantment the other night, it all made sense: Right Message, Wrong Deliverer.

As goes without saying, I have no faith in any of the Republican candidates. If there were a Jon Huntsman or a 'Rockefeller Republican'--educated Moderates who didn't go around catering to a bunch of nut jobs--I might lend them an ear. The GOP isn't smart enough to nominate those candidates.

I cannot get jazzed about anyone in this race and while I still intend to vote, I have zero idea as to who will get that vote.

Last year, I declared myself a political 'Unaffiliated', ending fifteen years of consistently Democratic registration. This was not an easy call: I was once a College Democrat and did some relatively-active campaigning for candidates even in the years that followed college. The Party had shown itself as the standard-bearer of many things-Progressive and I appreciated that, even when it took the Party years to evolve into those stances. But the more I watched the operation, the more it dawned on me that the Republican and Democratic parties are more similar than what they would like for us to see. As the saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." In our two-party system, the shoe fits.

America should not have to "choose between the lesser of two evils." In a land of an estimated 322 million people, it is both patronizing and suspect that our attentions are focused towards two candidates. The media fuels their rise. The apathy of the public does the same. But at the end of the day, it is the collaboration of the powers-that-be and the dominating parties that results in business as usual. The more we trust their candidates, the more we accept the status quo. The more we turn to the alleged security that the 150+ year old parties promote, the more we forfeit our voice and rely on the corporations in bed with them to do our bidding.

And we all know how corporations have our best interests at heart.

Kentucky Notoriety, Judicial Pride

Something remarkable happened in my 
native state today.

In Louisville, the largest and arguably
most liberal city in the state, a Republican
-appointed federal judge ruled that the
Commonwealth must recognize marriages 
of same-sex couples that were performed
in other states and countries.

I am still in shock.

Originally beginning this blog by stating 
that I am proud of Kentucky, I sobered up 
and recognized that most of its citizens 
don't agree with what happened in Louisville 
today. And while I, as a Gay man, am ecstatic 
over the ruling, I am also saddened because
the ruling hits home in a deep way. It forces 
me to think of those in Kentucky who 
disagree with legal/social equality for LGBT
people. And when thinking of them, they have 
faces instead of representation from a right-
winged think tank or a religious group. Those 
who disagree with my right to happiness have
names. They're some of my Facebook friends. 
Old co-workers. High school classmates. 
Family members and yes--my parents.

Part of me wants to be angry with them; to 
defriend them both on and offline, to shake 
them and say, "This isn't just some civil 
disagreement--this is MY LIFE!" I want to 
look at the friends whom I would like to think 
care about me and my happiness and ask,
"How can you say you love me publicly then 
go into a booth at the polls and vote against 
me?!" I would want to say what Sara Barielles
said best: "Who died and made you king of 
anything?!"

The other part of me recognizes that anger 
in these situations is exercise in futility. I am 
powerless to change anothers deeply-rooted 
prejudices on my own. I trust in time and 
increased awareness of the many challenges 
that face Women who Love Women and men 
who Love men. I let go of the anger and give
that to my Higher Power, knowing that Love 
triumphs always.

Today, I am proud of the judicial system. Once 
again, the Judicial Branch has risen to the task 
of its original founding: to protect the rights of 
the minority from the illegal desires of the 
majority.

Kentucky is now yet another stepping stone on 
this great, strengthening road to Equality. 

Godspeed.

Joe Biden's 'Honey-Do' List

Okay, admit it: you know that's what Joe Biden is looking at when he periodically stops giving President Obama the Nancy Reaganesque gaze of admiration. Or maybe it's a love note from Jill. Am I the only one out there who thinks that the Bidens are a good-looking couple? Al and Tipper had it goin on' (that is, until they didn't) but for their age, the Veep and the Second Lady looked good out on that dance floor.
But enough about the Vice-President's love life.

Tonight, we're finding out the state of our Union. Don't we already know that there are fifty of them?!

BA-DUM-CHING! *Matt is available for weddings, bar mitzvahs, birthdays, funerals, etc...*

Based on last year's statistics, it is likely that less than twelve percent of our fellow citizens will watch this event. And while I really can't blame any non-politically-interested person for choosing ESPN or HGTV instead, the State of the Union can be everything from comical to dramatic; as revealing as a former New York congressman in a wanton cell phone pic and as subdued as Justice Ginsberg's nightie (I apologize for the unnecessary and unwanted visual.)

What will we learn from the 2013 State of the Union? Probably nothing substantial. Thanks to First Lady Michelle Obama's guest, we'll learn that mohawks have a place in government these days. Thanks to yet another Republican moron from Texas, we'll learn that even those who make idle threats against the President's life are able to sit in a coveted space reserved for guests and watch as said Leader gives his remarks. (Let's hope that no Secret Service agents call in sick tonight!) We'll probably see some interesting facial expressions from Republicans, when they aren't reading their newspapers, texting or balancing their re-election checkbooks. I'll be fair, though: Democrats were just as attentive from 2001 to 2009.

Still, I love a good State of the Union (and I mean that quite literally!) A political junkie's heart rate goes up when various cabinet members and officeholders enter the chamber and near-cardiac arrest ensues when that little short guy bellows, "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States!!" And then there he is: the man I both voted into office and renewed his contract for another four years. While I'm a fan of Barackmyworld, I know that I'll be watching yet another glad-handing march to give a speech and then mountains and mountains of platitudes, applause, platitudes, applause and good ol' American rhetoric, followed by...yep, you guessed it...more applause. (With the exception of bitter Republicans.) Although nothing in the Constitution requires the President to appear before Congress to give this mandatory report, Woodrow "Jesus Christ Part Two" Wilson started the pomp--and I, for one, am glad that the tradition continues. If nothing, it's good theater.

Some really great theater should come afterwards, from the RepubliTea Party. Expect to hear two topics in vast repetition from both Marco Rubio and Kentucky's very own Rand Paul: deficit, deficit, deficit, immigrants, immigrants, immigrants. When you watch this, know that you are witnessing the first public attempt by the Conservative faction in America to pick itself up and dust itself off from the electoral ass-kicking that it received just three months ago. They must look good and believable tonight.

So, if you're a Moderate or someone who could really care less about government, grab some chips and a beer and sit down to watch a good time. If you're like me, drink to the President, his accomplishments and his plans for the next four years...

And during the official responses, sit next to the nearest toilet.

The Responsibility to Judge the Judd

I have a shameful confession to make. Although my offense hasn't kept me awake at night, it is still very much a deep, dark sting from my past. *Takes deep breath* Alright. Here goes:

In 2002, I, Matt Spencer...voted for Mitch McConnell.

You have no idea how difficult it was to type such an admission. But now that the word is out, I can breathe a little easier. That self-imposed burden of guilt no longer rests on my shoulders.

The only reason--definitely the only reason--why I voted to re-elect McConnell in 2002 is hard to admit as well. Most Liberal and Progressive Kentuckians don't like admitting it, either: and that's the fact that Mitch McConnell has done a lot for the Commonwealth of Kentucky since he took office in 1985.

Here is a lesson for you political novices: it is risky for a relatively poor state to lose its senior senator. "Senior Senator" isn't just an honorary title indicating age or number of years served. Being any state's longest-serving senator gives seniority, which is a huge advantage in obtaining much-needed federal funding--or, "pork"--for a particular state.

Unfortunately for Mitch, he has been more preoccupied with obstructionism federal in the last four-plus years instead of attending to the Commonwealth's needs. Between that and his 2009 ranking as "one of the fifteen most corrupt members of Congress", Senator McConnell will not receive my vote in his 2014 campaign. True, Kentucky has benefitted from McConnell's 'bacon'...but with the way that the pig is being slaughtered these days, the taste just isn't worth it.

My voters of like mind have turned their attention to politically-interested, Kentucky-rooted Ashley Judd. While Ms. Judd has shown that she isn't as mentally shallow as some of her Hollywood counterparts, I am not allowing myself to become too excited about her potential candicacy, simply based on the merit that she isn't Mitch McConnell. "Why?", you may ask?

The voters must judge her on the strength of her political knowledge and that of this state.

Kentuckians rely heavily on name recognition to elect their officials. In the last few decades, that voting methodology has proved disastrous. Richie Farmer, the University of Kentucky's "Mr. Basketball" of 1988, was elected Agriculture Commissioner based on his celebrity. After a scandal involving a mistress and her high-paying state job, he's now selling cars. Jim Bunning, elected to the U.S. House and Senate from Kentucky, had a background as an investment broker--but not before his acclaimed, seventeen-year run in Major League Baseball. After being named by Time magazine as "one of America's five worst Senators" and making a series of bizarre statements (one predicting the death of Justice Ginsberg), Bunning was essentially abandoned by the Kentucky's GOP. A majority of Kentucky voters elected Rand Paul to the Senate not because of his political experience--but because he's the son of perennial Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Had Coach Rick Pitino ran for governor prior to his scandalous affair and his legendary switch from UK to UofL, he would've been a shoo-in. Even if he ran today with all of that baggage, he'd still garner an impressive number of votes.

It speaks negatively of our state that we elect politicians based on their celebrity status. We should not be surprised when such celebrity ultimately harms the Commonwealth's interests--but we should learn from our mistakes.

While I wholeheartedly support the growing interest to "Ditch Mitch", I also think that we, as voters, owe it to ourselves (and our state) to give a more discerning eye to those who vie to represent us. I look forward to hearing more about Ashley Judd's vision for Kentucky. I look forward to a potential substantive debate between her and this power-driven smarm that we've kept in office for most of my life. Still, while remembering the ghosts of Kentucky's celebrities-turned-politicians, I will encourage every voter to ask themselves:

Will they be as effective on C-SPAN--as they were on ESPN or HBO?