DOCSLIB.ORG

Red and Blue America Redux

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Red and Blue America Redux R AMERICAED AND BLUE REDUX The Rhodes Cook Letter October 2003 The Rhodes Cook Letter OCTOBER 2003 / VOL. 4, NO. 5 Contents Bush, The Democrats and ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ America . 3 Chart: Red & Blue America Summary . 4 Chart: Red & Blue USA ‘02 Results, ‘04 Action . 5 Map & Chart: Bush and the Map, 2000-04 . 8 Chart: The President’s Party at Midterm and Presidential Elections that Follow . 9 Chart & Graph: GOP Gains Separation in ‘02 House Vote . 10 California: The Cornerstone of ‘Blue’ America . 11 Chart : Turnout Comparison: The Recall vs. High Profile Races of ‘02 . 11 Map & Chart: The Recall Vote by County. 12 Chart: Ronnie & Arnold: Boffo Political Debuts . 13 Tentative 2004 Democratic Primary Calendar and Delegate Count . 15 Other 2003 Elections: Gubernatorial, House Candidates at Ballot Box . 16 Changing Composition of the 108th Congress... And Governorships . 17 Subscription Page. 18 Looking Ahead: The next issue in December will focus on the fast-approaching presi- dential nominating season, the state of the Democratic campaign, and the varied terrain of primaries and caucuses the party’s candidates will face. The Rhodes Cook Letter is published by Rhodes Cook. Web: tion for six issues is $99. Make check payable to “The Rhodes rhodescook.com. E-mail: [email protected]. Design by Cook Letter” and send it, along with your e-mail address, to Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. “The Rhodes Cook Letter” is P.O. Box 574, Annandale, VA. 22003. See the last page of this being published on a bimonthly basis in 2003. A subscrip- newsletter for a subscription form. All contents are copyrighted ©2003 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material is welcome with attribution, although the author retains full copyright over the material contained herein. The Rhodes Cook Letter • October 2003 2 Bush, The Democrats, and ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ America hile the struggling economy or the situation in Iraq might ultimately undermine President WGeorge W. Bush’s bid for a second term, he is approaching his reelection campaign as arguably the most successful party-building president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Certainly, that is the case when measured in terms of Republican officeholders. FDR and Bush are the only presidents since the Depression whose parties gained House and Senate seats in their first midterm election. Both the Democrats under Roosevelt in 1934, and the Republicans under Bush in 2002, performed the rare political feat of solidifying their majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill in midterm voting. The GOP also emerged from last year’s election with more state legislative seats than the Demo- crats for the first time in a half century. And while the number of Republican governors has declined from 29 after the 2000 election to 27 now, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent victory in the California recall election gives the GOP control of the governorships in the four most populous states (California, Texas, New York and Florida). All of this compares quite favorably to Bush’s recent predecessors. Three years into Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Democrats had already lost their majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill. So had the Republicans at a similar point of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s presidency. As Jimmy Carter approached reelection, Democratic House and Senate majorities were on the decline, while John F. Kennedy moved toward the fateful November of 1963 with an increased Democratic majority in the Senate but a slightly smaller Democratic House majority than when he first took office. And the last three Republican presidents before Bush – Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush – all approached reelection saddled with Democratic majorities in the House of Representa- tives. Nixon and the elder Bush had to deal with a Democratic-controlled Senate as well. 2002: ‘Red’ America Trumps ‘Blue’ America epublicans succeeded in the 2002 election by doing better on their part of the national elec- Rtoral map than Democrats did on theirs. It is a map that has taken on a life of its own since the closely fought 2000 election, and reflects the concept of a nation evenly divided between ‘red’ and ‘blue’ America. For whatever reason, red is the color often associated with Republicans on election maps, with blue the color used to depict the Democrats. Thirty states comprise Red America, the states carried by Bush in the last presidential election. They are mainly in the South, the Plains, and the Mountain West. Twenty states make up Blue America. They are the states carried by Democrat Al Gore and are mainly in the Northeast, the Pacific West, the industrial Midwest and the more agrarian Upper Midwest. Altogether, Republican candidates won a healthy 78% of the Senate elections in Red America last fall, 74% of the gubernatorial elections, and 63% of the House elections. The Rhodes Cook Letter • October 2003 3 Meanwhile, Democrats won GOP’s 2002 Victory Fashioned in ‘Red’ America just 64% of the Senate elec- tions in Blue America, 58% of One of the enduring legacies of the 2000 presidential election is the concept of the House elections, and 53% ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ America - red being the 30 states carried by Republican George W. of the gubernatorial races. Bush and blue being the 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, won by Democrat Al Gore. The Bush states are largely in the South and America’s rural heartland. The To be sure, Democrats Gore states are clustered in the industrial Frost Belt and along the Pacific Coast. Taken scored some notable ‘against together, Red and Blue America produced an almost even division of the electoral vote in the last presidential election. the grain’ victories in guber- natorial and Senate races last Republicans basically won the 2002 midterm elections by running better in gubernatorial, Senate and House races in ‘red’ states than Democrats did in the ‘blue’ fall, holding hotly contested ones. In all three categories, the GOP won a higher share of the races in states carried Senate seats in Louisiana and by Bush in 2000 than Democrats won in the states carried by Gore. South Dakota, while picking The tally of House members in Blue America includes one independent, Vermont’s up a Senate seat in Arkansas Bernard Sanders. and governorships in such seemingly hostile territory as RED AMERICA Seats Won % of races Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma Total Reps. Dems. won by Reps. and Wyoming. Democrats even picked up the gover- Governors 19 14 5 74% norship in Tennessee, which Senators 23 18 5 78% had denied its electoral votes House 218 138 80 63% BLUE AMERICA Seats Won two years earlier to native % of races son Al Gore – 11 electoral Total Reps. Dems. won by Dems. votes that would have given Governors 17 8 9 53% Gore the presidency. Senators 11 4 7 64% But Republicans made deep- House 217 91 125 58% er inroads into Blue America last year than Democrats did into Red America. Case in point, the House races. While the GOP won 91 of the 217 House seats in the Gore states last year, Democrats won only 80 of 218 seats in the Bush states. The resulting 58-seat advantage that the GOP posted in Red America easily offset the 34-seat edge that Democrats had in Blue America. Republicans also picked up a critical Senate seat in Minnesota, and won six governorships in states from Massachusetts to Hawaii that Gore had carried two years earlier by at least 15 percentage points. For good measure, the GOP picked up the Vermont governorship vacated by Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. Party Building Can Beget Polarization ush’s White House has played an integral role in the Republicans’ recent success, both in Brecruiting candidates and helping to raise tens of millions of dollars to fund their campaigns. Bush has exhibited a degree of intraparty involvement that goes far beyond the level of most of his recent predecessors in the Oval Office. And so far, it has paid off. But the flip side of efficient, hard-charging party building can be polarization, something the Ameri- can electorate is displaying these days in spades. A Gallup Poll taken earlier this month indicated that fully three-quarters of all registered voters have already made up their mind whether they will vote for or against Bush next November. And they are (Continued on Page 6) The Rhodes Cook Letter • October 2003 4 2002 Election Results in Red and Blue America... And What’s Up in 2004 Republicans are indicated below in bold type; Democrats in regular type. An asterisk (*) indicates the gubernational election will be held in 2003. Where a presidential candidate’s margin of victory was less than 1 percentage point in 2000, it is given in tenths of a point, or in the case of Florida, hundredths of a percentage point. RED AMERICA (States carried by Bush in 2000) 2000 Pres. 2002 Election Winners Up in 2004 Winner State(and margin) Gov. Sen. House R D I Governors Senators UUtahtah BBushush bbyy 441%1% - - R 2 1 MMichaelichael LeavittLeavitt ((R)R) RRobertobert BBennettennett ((R)R) IIdahodaho BBushush bbyy 440%0% R R R 2 0 - MMichaelichael CCraporapo ((R)R) WWyomingyoming BBushush bbyy 440%0% D R R 1 0 - - AAlaskalaska BBushush bbyy 331%1% R R R 1 0 - LLisaisa MMurkowskiurkowski ((R)R) NNebraskaebraska BBushush bbyy 229%9% R R R 3 0 - - NNorthorth DDakotaakota BBushush bbyy 228%8% - - D 0 1 JJohnohn HoevenHoeven (R)(R) BByronyron DDorganorgan ((D)D) MMontanaontana BBushush bbyy 225%5% - D R 1 0 JJudyudy MMartzartz ((R)R) - SSouthouth DDakotaakota BBushush bbyy 223%3% R D R 1 0 - TTomom DDaschleaschle ((D)D) OOklahomaklahoma BBushush bbyy 222%2% D R R 4 1 - DDonon NNicklesickles ((R)R)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and All Delegates to the Democratic National Convention
    Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and all delegates to the Democratic National Convention: The undersigned organizations hope that all Democrats agree that the will of the voters should be decisive in determining the Democratic nominees for the country’s highest offices. We therefore urge the Democratic Party – via action at this month’s Democratic National Convention – to eliminate the concept of so-called “superdelegates.” This change would not impact the ongoing nomination proceedings, but would take effect for all future national nominee selection processes and conventions. The superdelegate system is unrepresentative, contradicts the purported values of the party and its members, and reduces the party’s moral authority. • The system undermines representative democracy and means that the electorate is not necessarily decisive in determining who will be the Democratic nominees for president and vice president and dilutes the voters’ say over the party’s platform and the rules under which it operates. Astonishingly, these unelected delegates have essentially as much weight as do the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined. • The system undermines the Democratic Party's commitment to gender equity. While the party’s charter rightfully mandates that equal numbers of pledged delegates be male and female, a near super-majority of superdelegates are men. • The Democratic Party prides itself on its commitment to racial justice and the racial diversity of its ranks. Yet the superdegelates appears to skew the party away from appropriate representation of communities of color: Proportionately, approximately 20% fewer of this year’s superdelegates hail from communities of color than was true of the 2008 and 2012 pledged delegate cohorts, or of the voters who supported President Obama in those years’ general elections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charter the Bylaws
    THE CHARTER & THE BYLAWS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES As Amended by The Democratic National Committee August 25, 2018 CONTENTS CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 1 PREAMBLE 1 ARTICLE ONE ........................................ The Democratic Party of the United States of America 2 ARTICLE TWO ....................................... National Convention 3 ARTICLE THREE ................................... Democratic National Committee 5 ARTICLE FOUR ..................................... Executive Committee 5 ARTICLE FIVE ....................................... National Chairperson 6 ARTICLE SIX.......................................... Party Conference 6 ARTICLE SEVEN ................................... National Finance Organizations 6 ARTICLE EIGHT..................................... Full Participation 7 ARTICLE NINE ....................................... General Provisions 9 ARTICLE TEN ........................................ Amendments, Bylaws, and Rules 9 RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION BYLAWS Adopted Pursuant to the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States 11 ARTICLE ONE ........................................ Democratic National Convention 11 ARTICLE TWO ....................................... Democratic National Committee 20 ARTICLE THREE ................................... Executive Committee 22 ARTICLE FOUR ..................................... National Finance Organizations 22 ARTICLE FIVE ....................................... Amendments i CHARTER CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE
    [Show full text]
  • Nancy Green Speech February 3 2009
    Nancy Greens Campaign Speech for the election of Chapter Chair of the Berlin Chapter of Democrats Abroad Germany on February 3, 2009 Barack Obama has been elected president …Wow… How did this happen? It was no accident!! Of course there are many factors that lead to the outcome of this historic election … which will be analyzed at the local Stammtisch and by scholars and institutions far into the future. One thing I can say from my perspective here in Berlin is. We had something to do with it. And people like us had something to do with it. From Berlin and Munich, Heidelberg, and Landstuhl, to Rome, Vancouver, London, Madrid, Ukraine, Lebanon and Israel, to Denver…. Democrats all over the world had something to do with the outcome of this election. We also had some help …. George Bush…. Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld John McCain… I could go on and on, but I only have 10 minutes… The missteps of the Republican Party are one major factor. Other factors include the Organization of the Democratic Party the Obama Campaign, The leadership of Howard Dean and people like us at the grass-roots. Then there is Barack Obama himself, who has inspired millions. Change has come about because we have had leadership. We are here because we care about our country and, adhering to the basic principles of the Democratic Party, we want to bring about changes in our nation’s policies regarding, to name only some the economy, health care, education, the environment, equal rights, scientific research, support for the arts, foreign policy, Iraq, Quantanemo and Habeus Corpus.
    [Show full text]
  • Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Papers: a Guide to Its Records at the Jimmy Carter Library
    441 Freedom Parkway NE Atlanta, GA 30307 http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Papers: A Guide to Its Records at the Jimmy Carter Library Collection Summary Creator: Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee. Title: Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Papers Dates: 1977-1980 Quantity: 171 linear feet, 1 linear inch open for research, 391 containers Identification: Accession Number: 80-1 National Archives Identifier: 593160 Scope and Content: This collection contains letters, correspondence, memoranda, handwritten notes, studies, speeches, recommendations, position papers, press releases, briefing books, notebooks, proposals, studies, voter lists, reports, political statements, publications and news clippings. These records document various aspects of President Carter’s 1980 re-election campaign. This includes the formation of political strategy; polling data; legal and procedural issues; administrative items such as finance, fundraising and budget matters; statements on issues; scheduling; speeches; field staff operations in states and regions; polling data; voter lists; public correspondence and materials relating to press issues. Creator Information: Carter/Mondale 1980 Re-Election Committee Restrictions: Restrictions on Access: These papers contain documents restricted in accordance with Executive Order 12958, which governs National Security policies, and material which has been closed in accordance with the donor’s deed of gift. Terms Governing Use and Reproduction: Copyright interest in
    [Show full text]
  • The Visible Primaries
    THE VISI PRIMARIES BLE The Rhodes Cook Letter December 2003 The Rhodes Cook Letter DECEMBER 2003 / VOL. 4, NO. 6 Contents Enter the Voters . 3 Chart: Democratic Success Index. 3 Chart: Republicans Nominate Early Front-Runners, Democrats often Don’t . 4 Map & Chart: 2004 Nominating Season at a Glance . 6 Chart: 2004 Democratic Delegate Selection by Month . 8 Chart: 2000 Democratic and Republican Primary Results. 10 Chart: Iowa, New Hampshire and the Road to Nomination . 12 Map & Chart : A Thumbnail Look at the ‘Kingmakers’ . 13 Chart : Gephardt’s 1988 Presidential Run . 14 Chart : At the End of the Third Quarter: Money and the Polls . 15 Chart: The Ups and Downs of the ‘Invisible Primary’ . 16 Map & Chart: Bush and the Electoral College Map . 18 Looking Back, Looking Ahead . 19 What’s up in 2004 . 19 2003 Gubernatorial Elections: The Constant is Change . 20 Changing Composition of the 108th Congress . 21 Subscription Page . 22 The Rhodes Cook Letter is published by Rhodes Cook. Web: is $99. Make check payable to “The Rhodes Cook Letter” and rhodescook.com. E-mail: [email protected]. Design by send it, along with your e-mail address, to P.O. Box 574, Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. “The Rhodes Cook Letter” is Annandale, VA. 22003. See the last page of this newsletter for published on a bimonthly basis. A subscription for six issues a subscription form. All contents are copyrighted ©2004 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material is welcome with attribution, although the author retains full copyright over the material contained herein. The Rhodes Cook Letter • December 2003 2 Enter the Voters he Democratic presidential nominating campaign is about to move from the political equiva- Tlent of tryouts in New Haven to the make-or-break of Broadway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Invisible Primary and the 1996 Presidential Nomination
    The Invisible Primary and the 1996 Presidential Nomination Thomas R. Marshall, University of Texas at Arlington The 1996 presidential nominations process will not begin with the first state primaries and caucuses. By January 1996 the candidates had already spent millions of dollars and thousands of days campaigning during the "in­ visible primary." The 1996 nominations race features several new prac­ tices—such as the front-loading of delegate-selection events, and the re- emergence of Washington insiders as the early GOP leaders. For the first time since 1964 the Democrat Party did not face a spirited nominations race. This article reviews the prenomination season for the 1996 presidential race with evidence available by early January 1996. Public Opinion Public opinion remained relatively stable during the 1995 "invisible primary," just as it typically has in recent presidential contests.1 Heavy spending in key primary and caucus states, debates among the candidates, and the entry and exit of candidates all failed to move public opinion polls during 1995. In the absence of saturation media coverage and media labeling of "winners" and "losers" in the early caucuses and primaries, few dramatic poll shifts appeared. The Republicans Throughout 1995, the Gallup Poll reported only slight changes in the first-choice preferences of self-identified Republicans and independents leaning Republicans. Between April 1995 and January 1996, front-runner Bob Dole’s support varied only from a low of 45 percent to a high of 51 percent. Support for Senator Phil Gramm varied only from a low of seven percent to a high of 13 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of a GLOBAL PARTY? American Party Organizations Abroad
    PARTY POLITICS VOL 9. No.2 pp. 241–255 Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications London Thousand Oaks New Delhi THE RISE OF A GLOBAL PARTY? American Party Organizations Abroad Taylor Dark III ABSTRACT In discussions of party organization, scholars have generally assumed that such organizations operate exclusively on the domestic level, seeking to alter electoral results by raising votes and money from constituencies at home. This research note shows that this assumption is outdated, because the US Democratic and Republican parties now maintain overseas branches in dozens of different countries. These branches seek through a variety of means to mobilize the votes and financial resources of Americans abroad in an attempt to change domestic political outcomes. An analysis of the rise of these groups demonstrates the value of the concept of globalization in an area where it is usually not considered relevant, and raises new normative and practical questions about how to regulate overseas political activity by US citizens and parties. KEY WORDS American politics globalization party organization One of the oldest and most resilient ways of conceptualizing political party activity has been to divide it into three components: the party in the elec- torate, the party in government and the party as an organization. The last of these components was, of course, defined in reference to the leaders and activists who worked through the party apparatus to gain members, finan- cial contributions and votes on behalf of party nominees. Naturally enough, this activity was assumed to take place entirely within the territorial bound- aries of the country where the party contested elections – American party organizations mobilized within the USA, British parties within Britain, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process
    To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process August 2001 The National Commission on Federal Election Reform Organized by Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia The Century Foundation Supported by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Miller Center of Public Affairs University of Virginia P.O. Box 400406 2201 Old Ivy Road Charlottesville VA 22904-4406 tel 804-924-7236 fax 804-982-2739 web http://millercenter.virginia.edu The Century Foundation 41 East 70th Street New York NY 10021 tel 212-535-4441 fax 212-879-9190 web http://www.tcf.org www.reformelections.org The Commission Public Hearings Honorary Co-Chairs March 26, 2001 President Gerald R. Ford Citizen Participation President Jimmy Carter The Carter Center Co-Chairs Atlanta, Georgia Robert H. Michel April 12, 2001 Lloyd N. Cutler Election Administration Vice-Chairs The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Slade Gorton Simi Valley, California Kathleen M. Sullivan May 24, 2001 Commissioners What Does the Law Require? Griffin Bell Lyndon B. Johnson Library and Museum Rudy Boschwitz Austin,Texas John C. Danforth Christopher F. Edley, Jr. June 5, 2001 Hanna Holborn Gray The American and International Experience Colleen C. McAndrews Gerald R. Ford Library Daniel Patrick Moynihan Ann Arbor, Michigan Leon Panetta Deval L. Patrick Diane Ravitch Bill Richardson John Seigenthaler Michael Steele Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process August 2001 The National Commission on Federal Election Reform Organized by Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia The Century Foundation Supported by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The John S.
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting Representative and Qualified Candidates for President
    Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 This report was researched and writen during the 2019-2020 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic, where students developed non-partsan recommendatons to strengthen the naton’s insttutons and its democracy. The clinic was supervised by Professor and Dean Emeritus John D. Feerick and Visitng Clinical Professor John Rogan. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the individuals who generously took tme to share their general views and knowledge with us: Robert Bauer, Esq., Professor Monika McDermot, Thomas J. Schwarz, Esq., Representatve Thomas Suozzi, and Jesse Wegman, Esq. This report greatly benefted from Gail McDonald’s research guidance and Flora Donovan’s editng assistance. Judith Rew and Robert Yasharian designed the report. Table of Contents Executve Summary .....................................................................................................................................1 Introducton .....................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Toyota to Increase 4-Cylinder Engine Capacity in Kentucky
    Toyota to Increase 4-Cylinder Engine Capacity in Kentucky May 08, 2012 ERLANGER, Ky. (May 8, 2012) — Toyota announced today it will increase annual engine assembly capacity of 4-cylinder engines by more than 100,000 at its plant in Georgetown, Ky. The increase will begin August 2013. The approximately $30 million project will create about 80 new jobs. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky (TMMK) currently assembles engines for the Avalon, Camry and Venza, all built at TMMK. The capacity increase will supply engines for TMMK’s Camry and Camry Hybrid and RAV4 in Woodstock, Ontario. “Twenty six years ago, I took part in Toyota’s groundbreaking in Georgetown, which was filled with excitement for Kentucky’s future,” Governor Beshear said. “Today, we still have that same excitement for Toyota’s past, present and future in the Commonwealth. This latest expansion brings Toyota’s total investment to nearly $6 billion, meaning billions of dollars in incomes for thousands of Kentuckians, changing lives, strengthening our economy, and improving the Commonwealth.” The increase will raise TMMK total employment to approximately 6,700 and total plant investment to more than $5.96 billion. “This is great news for our team members and our company,” said Wil James, president of TMMK. “This project is the result of the strong partnerships we have locally and across the state, which will help grow our business and strengthen the communities where we do business.” Today’s announcement is the latest in a string of production increase announcements since February including Toyota plants in Indiana, West Virginia and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Coombes I Applied for the Burns Fellowship After a Work
    Andrew Coombes I applied for the Burns Fellowship after a work colleague and Burns alumna spoke in glowing terms about the experience she had had in Berlin a few years previously. Having a long-held interest in the modern history of Germany, I felt that the fellowship programme would present me with an opportunity to explore some stories in depth for Al Jazeera English, my home organisation, while also giving me an insight into how German media operate through my host organisation in Germany. I felt mild trepidation after being accepted to the fellowship - I was concerned that having no German language skills would be a natural impediment to producing material, particularly when working in a German newsroom. I was therefore grateful that the Burns Fellowship offered two weeks of intensive German language training at the Goethe Institute. To those who are wary of applying to the Burns programme due to their lack of German - just apply regardless. I found the tuition offered by the Goethe instrumental in getting a feel for the German language and it also presented me with some useful insights into German society and culture. With umlauts practiced and my pronunciation of ‘entschuldigung’ well-drilled, I turned up early on a warm Monday morning at the Berlin parliamentary bureau of the Rheinische Post, who kindly agreed to be my host for the early part of my placement. A few days prior to the placement I had had a few kolsch beers with Michael Broecker, who leads the bureau, and found him to be approachable, engaged and eager to help in any way that he could.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance
    HISTORY OF THE KENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE KENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE 140 WALNUT STREET FRANKFORT, KY 40601 Kentucky Registry of Election Finance 140 Walnut Street Frankfort, KY 40601 HISTORY The Kentucky Registry of Election Finance was created by the General Assembly in 1966 to monitor the financial activity of candidates for public office and committees formed to participate in the election process. Succeeding General Assemblies have adopted amendments to the original act and enacted regulations to support the statutes. The duties and responsibilities of the Registry are found in Chapter 121 of the Kentucky Revised Statues. The Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s Board held their first meeting on September 13, 1966. Those present were: Frank B. Hower, Jr., Jo M. Ferguson, Jo T. Orendorf, Mrs. Adron Doran, and W. Henderson Dysard. All appointed by Governor Breathitt. On January 21, 1967 the Registry office moved into its first permanent facility located at 310 West Liberty Street, Room 400, Louisville, KY 40202. The offices of the Registry occupied that building for nine years. Then on July 1, 1976 the offices were moved to 1520 Louisville Road, Frankfort, KY 40601 where it resided for 15 years. On July 1, 1991 the offices were moved to the current address of 140 Walnut Street, Frankfort, KY 40601. THE REGISTRY’S ROLE The role of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance is to assure the integrity of the Commonwealth's electoral process by making certain there is full public access to campaign financial data and financial disclosure reports, and by administering Kentucky's campaign finance laws.
    [Show full text]