According to a senior Beshear Administration official, the Christmas card allegedly paid for illegally by the Kentucky Democratic Party has not been produced or approved by the Administration.
According to our Beshear admin source, they are going to produce a Christmas card that will be sent to supporters. But it hasn’t yet been approved, hasn’t been given to the KDP and hasn’t even been printed.
Someone within KDP passed things around to the Republican Party of Kentucky. In other words, KDP caused this entire mess by letting it get into the hands of the Republicans before anything even happened. And responsibility rests on the shoulders of KDP for any potential campaign finance violations and any potential complaints filed.
From what we can tell, and according to everyone we’ve spoken to within the administration, at no time did anyone ever state that the card would only include a photo of the Beshear family. And at no time did anyone at the Herald-Leader bother to ask questions to dig further.
We wanted to stop hating on the KDP because it’s been through enough under the current embarrassing leadership. But. Jesus H.
When will it end?
15 responses so far ↓
1 btucker // Dec 11, 2008 at 1:24 pm
It’s just a Christmas card. The issue hardly merits Doug Hawkins-like breathless alarms of illegal, scandalous campaign finance violations. I think it shows the depth of dumbness in the current KDP leadership.
That said, I like this card better than the one I usually get from Charlie Owen.
2 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It doesn’t matter that it’s “just a Christmas Card.” A campaign finance violation is a campaign finance violation.
Regular readers will know that we harp on every campaign finance snafu on earth, not just those alleged to be of KDP mismanagement, because jacking around with campaign finance is one of the biggest areas of corruption in this country.
3 John Cheves // Dec 11, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Jake wrote: “And at no time did anyone at the Herald-Leader bother to ask questions to dig further.”
Not so fast, Jake.
I didn’t write this story, I just read it. But from reading it, it’s clear that our reporter questioned the governor’s spokesman, Jay Blanton, who didn’t say anything yesterday about this being an “unapproved” Christmas card. Blanton just said the governor’s office would research the relevant election-finance opinions.
Our reporter also called the Kentucky Democratic Party, which didn’t return his calls.
If your secret source at the governor’s office today tells you that this is not the governor’s office fault, it’s the party’s fault, that’s swell, but let’s see some names to go with that, please. And go easy with the accusations about laziness, OK? Our reporter made the calls.
4 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I didn’t say anyone was lazy. I said questions weren’t asked. Jack didn’t ask if anyone else would appear on the card.
Jack heard from RPK that Beshear was sending out Christmas cards and that it could be illegal. He then called Jay Blanton (not my source) up, who told him they were working on a card, didn’t say it’d been sent out, and provided Jack with a copy of the artwork they’d be working on.
The governor’s office didn’t say it was the KDP’s fault – I said it was. And it clearly is. Note that the KDP didn’t bother returning telephone calls.
5 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 3:00 pm
P.S. It is rare for me to take up for the Beshear Administration.
One would think that it’d have to be kind of a big deal in order for me to take anything they say seriously.
So… Just saying…
6 Eastender // Dec 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm
the “senior Beshear administration official” is likely lying…why? the KDP just happen to have this photo of the first family posing in the mansion in front of a Christmas tree…yeh, right. Beshear’s folks knew about it-how else do you think the party got the photo? Cheap excuse and likely an outright lie! Apparently it is not, as some say, just a Christmas card because they felt the need to lie about it…and secondly, it doesn’t say Christmas anywhere in it!
7 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Where’d we say the Beshear administration didn’t know about it?
Please re-read what we have written.
Because I’m pretty certain we’ve said exactly the opposite of what you’re alleging…
8 Eastender // Dec 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm
not saying you said it at all…just questioning the administration’s story
9 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm
That would be understandable… if your comment made sense?
The Administration didn’t say it didn’t know anything about anything.
For real, folks, please read and click the links before commenting.
10 John Cheves // Dec 11, 2008 at 4:09 pm
This silly flap is an example of why I’m suspicious of any “senior officials” in public service who refuse to let their names be used.
You work in government, draw a salary from the taxpayers and have an explanation for something? Great. Come out and talk on the record.
Unless you’re in Swiss banking or international espionage, why the need for all this ridiculous secrecy?
Jeez, I wish I had a nickel for every time, as a reporter in Frankfort or Washington, that I’ve heard some variation of: “Oh, if only you knew what the insiders told me off the record … but … I can’t say any more! It’s all hush-hush! Let’s just say, the insiders tell me the insiders are all terrific! And they would know! They’re insiders!”
11 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 4:16 pm
You know as well as I do that this administration is terribly awkward about always refusing to be on-the-record.
Like the KDP flap a couple weekends ago. Somebody told me one thing while telling Joe Gerth another.
12 Deep Throat (Not the Move, "Cheves") // Dec 11, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Jake, have you checked “John Cheves” ISP address (or whatever you call it)?
I would hope that this is an imposter.
No self-respecting journalist would challenge you to name a source or attack you for using “off the record” comments from high-ranking officials. That’s how corruption is exposed. Remember Watergate? Or even Felner-gate? I imagine that many of your sources were high-ranking taxpayer paid employees of U of L, and without them, I doubt you would have been able to break a big story, or break it so well.
I also can’t believe that someone who spends his career criticizing people would be so thin-skinned to attack Jake for your gentle jab at the Herald-Leader.
Say it ain’t so, John. (Or say it ain’t John, Jake!)
13 John Cheves // Dec 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm
It’s true that most politicians and their aides prefer to stay off the record, unless they’re at a ribbon-cutting ceremony or a giant Styrofoam check presentation. It’s an unhealthy habit, one that can be curbed, at least in part, if we in the media stop letting them have their say anonymously.
It’s OK to chat with a “senior official” in the hallway without transcribing it later for all the world to see. It’s OK to follow a tip without naming the tipster. But my attitude is, they’re not getting their point of view in print unless their name goes next to it. None of this “sources say” or “according to critics” unless I can name at least one such source or critic. Otherwise, we are encouraging dishonesty (like the Frankfort folks who told you one thing off-the-record and Joe Gerth another thing on-the-record) and cowardly slaps at political enemies.
I figure my name is on every story I write, so my sources — especially the well-paid ones — should be at least as brave.
14 jake // Dec 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm
John – Excellent points.
I suppose I should start letting stories sit in the dark until people want to be on-the-record. Today would have been a perfect opportunity. Because the story would have made the administration look worse and worse until someone wanted to pony up and admit– on-the-record– what happened.
15 Jinx // Dec 11, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Well thats what gets me about the tv and newspapers in Kentucky. There ARE LOTS OF STORIES ON CORRUPTION, “sitting in the dark”.
Didn’t everyone know that Kentucky is number three in corruption based on conviction rates of public officials per population!
For example. Greg Stumbo prosecuted Ernie Fletcher on a misdemeanor charge? Right, everyone knows that.
Well, somebody reported the same misdemeanor charge against a Stumbo campaign contributor to the OAG, which claimed in a letter- that the OAG didn’t have jurisdiction to prosecute the campaign contributor.
Ok folks, so Stumbo as AG prosecuted Fletcher on official misconduct- and refused to investigate/prosecute Stumbo’s campaign contributor on official misconduct, claiming the OAG didn’t have jurisdiction.
The media knows fully well about this little situation but you don’t hear anybody reporting on it. As Jake says, “it’s sitting in the dark”.
Leave a Comment