Hello, nice site look this:
sesso gratis Ida [url=http://sesso-gratis.sex-italy.org/sesso-gratis.html]sesso gratis Ida[/url]

End ^) See you

Hello, nice site look this:
sesso Egle [url=http://sex-italy.org/index.html]sesso Egle[/url]

End ^) See you

The following sentence in the article (about Greg Stumbo) makes no sense --"Earlier this month, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that Stumbo would conduct a poll to test his viability in a Democratic primary and make a decision by Dec. 1." Since this month IS December, and since today is the 6th, this is not logical. Perhaps you meant Jan. 1, 2007, instead?

If the Republicans nominate Bill Harper, it will be a repeat of the Alaska situation here in 06'. If Fletcher wins the democratic nomination, then the Dems. will pick this one up. I'm guessing that Bill Harper will be the next governor of Kentucky. Does anyone really think McConnell will risk supporting Fletcher? Look what happened to Trent Lott for supporting Strom Thurmond. Yes, he is now known as the comeback kid but that gaffe did cost him.

Dr Dan for Governor in '07. Progressive leadership in this state is long overdue. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the topic. Remember, Mr. C, I am the same fella that gave you the October signal that one John Yarmuth was going to be my next third district U.S. House Representative. Obviously, a lot hinges upon the results of Dr. Mongiardo's exploratory findings and I'm sure to a great degree the financial pledges accompanying same. That being said, I feel confident that a significant majority of my fellow Kentuckians are ready for progressive leadership that is capable of rising above partisan malaise and getting down to the serious business of moving this state forward. Sincerely, Daniel Linton

Thanks for the clarification. I live in Texas, where no one runs on a ticket. Governor and Lieut. Governor can be from different parties, and almost always are political rivals, even from within the same party. The Governorship is a position that has the attention and glamour but very little power, while the Lieut. Governor really has more power (but a diffuse, behind-the-scenes kind of power).

Miller-Conway is the best ticket out there if it ever happens!

To respond to Staley's comment. Kentucky changed the law in 1992 in an attempt at public financing. The change also mandated that anyone running for governor, had to file with a running mate, as a slate. You can raise a little money for exploring (something like $40,000?), but you can't do much until you have that running mate, thus the reason that Steve Henry will def. run, he says, but can't until someone will run with him.

Chris, thanks for putting our race out front of your readers. I only worry that Pat and Al's columns should not be your only sources. The Bluegrassreport.org and the Kentucky.com blogs are also good sources.

At this point, it was the Dems to lose (Ernie has abysmal approval ratings) and they seem to be working real hard to lose it, even before the race is started.

In response to the first comment....in order to file to run for election in Kentucky, a gubernatorial candidate must have a running mate. So no one can declare if they don't have one yet.

Chris -- Here is the take on 2008 president's race -- from the far right perspective:

'Breaking from NewsMax.com

Dick Morris: Romney Problems, Right Wing Doesn't Have Candidate

With the recent defeat of Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia, and the surprising withdrawal of Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., from the presidential race, the right wing of the Republican Party is running out of candidates for president in 2008.

For the centrists within the party, the likely candidacy of Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and the possible option of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani offer attractive possibilities, but whom do the conservatives have to put up against them? Surely the GOP is not about to embrace the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-immigration Giuliani. (He's fine with us, but not with the party base.)

Nor are they likely to find favor with John McCain, co-sponsor -- with Ted Kennedy -- of the immigration amnesty bill, supporter of the rights of detainees to avoid "torture," sponsor -- with Joe Lieberman -- of the anti-global warming initiative, and the original framer of campaign finance reform. Conservatives are also likely to hold his membership in the so-called "gang of fourteen" against him. Back in 2005, he joined six other Republicans and seven Democrats in backing confirmation of moderate judges without a filibuster.

Story continues below...

The current conservative front-runner is soon-to-be former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But Romney's social positions aren't likely to appeal to mainstream conservatives. During his 2002 race for governor, Romney said that while he personally opposed abortion, he "would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." He said he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Ted Kennedy couldn't have said it better himself.

Romney said, in a 1994 television debate against Kennedy (he ran for the Senate that year against Teddy), that he changed his pro-life stand after, "A dear, close family relative...passed away from an illegal abortion...Since that time, I have been committed to the belief that...we will not force our [pro-life] beliefs on others. You will not see me wavering on that."

Wavering? No. But out right reversing, yes. Romney seems to be a chameleon who adjusts his positions to suit the need of his environment. When he was running in a liberal state against the most liberal member of the Senate, he talked liberal. But now that he wants to win a Republican primary with a conservative base, he speaks their language.

Now, he says that his views on abortion have "evolved and changed" since he sought election in the most liberal state in the nation and he now considers himself pro-life.

But on abortion, the only thing liberals and conservatives agree on is that they can't stand those who would flip-flop on this moral issue, adjusting not only to the political winds but also to the geographic area in which they are running at the moment. Since Romney has flip-flop-flipped, going from pro-life to pro-choice to pro-life, he is unlikely to gain traction on the right.

So whom does that leave?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he will come into the race by September of 2007 if "nobody else has caught fire." But Gingrich may find that his own past makes him a hard pill for the Christian right to swallow. And clearly, he subordinated the moral agenda of the conservatives to his budget-balancing, tax-cutting economic priorities when he was Speaker. Again, fine with us, but not with the base.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is looking more and more attractive given the paucity of the field. He is eloquent, outspoken, and has shown a record of great creativity in his state. Not only is he hard-line on the social issues -- as a former Baptist minister and president of the Southern Baptist Convention -- but his policies on health care and nutrition mark him as a compassionate Christian conservative as well.

His state is a defect and he's the world's worst fundraiser, but the right could seek him out. He's lost 100 pounds, so he really must want the job. (Note: He's a former client.)

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback is another possibility, but he lacks Huckabee's background, passion, and stage presence.

Or there could be someone else. But, at this stage, the Republican right is scraping the bottom of the barrel.'

Too bad Mussolini's dead, hmm?

After a study revealed that less than 10% of evangelicals were bible literate, James Dobson's Focus on the Family is desperately taking a two-day multi-media Bible boot camp on the road, selling "truth" for $179 a seat.

It's been a rough season for the Christian right. Even for an eschatological movement, these are dark days. First came former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives David Kuo's public admission that evangelicals were often derided as "nuts" and "goofy" within the inner sanctums of the Bush administration. Then, weeks before losing their shotgun seat in the 109th Congress, the booming voice of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, was silenced in a scandal involving a gay hooker, massage oils, methamphetamine, and a string of Denver hotel rooms booked under false names.

But even before all that hit the fundamentalist fan, the movement was contending with a quieter, more systemic crisis: functional Biblical illiteracy among the flock. That's right, religious conservatives aren't so religious, after all.

This alarm was sounded by George Barna, chief pollster and CEO of the Barna Group, a Ventura, CA-based Christian polling and communications outfit. In August of 2005, Barna reported that less than ten percent of born-again Christians held what he termed a "Biblical worldview." Based on his survey, very few grasped the nuances of scripture or believed in "Absolute Truth" any more than their secular counterparts; the "Body of Christ" had been infected with the virus of Relativism, a wasting disease.

"Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content," reported Barna, "our research found that most [professed evangelicals] have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life."

The prolific Barna dashed off a book in response to this worrying discovery. Entitled Think Like Jesus -- and marketed as "one of those books that really ticks off Satan" -- it quickly sold out in Barna's online bookstore. A second edition of Think Like Jesus soon went to press to further aggravate the Lord of Darkness.

Barna's poll and subsequent call to think like Jesus caught the attention of Dr. James Dobson, patriarch of the two most important religious right groups, the $140-million-a-year Focus on the Family, and its more politically minded spin-off, the D.C.-based Family Research Council. Dobson called Barna's report on Christian America's disappearing Biblical worldview "very distressing news," and felt that it warranted a muscular response, one befitting the massive resources at his disposal. The result is Focus on the Family's "The Truth Project: An In-Depth Christian Worldview Experience," a slick and intensive two-day training conference that kicked-off a North American tour last month at a mega-church outside Atlanta. It has since visited sell-out audiences in six cities; there are already 10 events planned for 2007.

've got some earth-shattering news to report from The New York Times: Hillary Clinton is thinking of running for president. Okay, take a breath, because that's not all. Apparently, according to the super-secret sources of Serious Political Reporter Patrick Healy, she's even been having meetings with other Democrats to discuss her run. Yes, that is pretty much the entirety of the news found in this 1,327 word Times/Clinton '08 press release/news story. Each graph is more ridiculous and redundant than the last, and, as I read it, I found myself having the same thoughts as when I hear a Bush press conference: Does he really think we're that stupid? Is there no adult supervision? If newspapers cease to exist, it will be because of articles like this.

What about the odds of Fletcher facing a challenge from someone like Anne Northup? Is that a possibility?

What happens to a celebration deferred?

Last year, Congress had planned a triumphant national "day of celebration" upon the return of our armed services following their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. A provision in the 2006 National Defense Authorization Bill set aside $20 million for our generation's V-I Day. (For those wondering, success would be determined by presidential proclamation.)

Alas, the ticker tape orders have been postponed. With our troops mired in mideast violence, Senate Republicans added a line to the 2007 defense authorization bill to extend the measure through next year. Because, you know, all our troops are coming home then.

Half the people on this list seem like past losers. How do they expect to win now? Also what about George Clooney's dad, isn't he from kentucky, and didn't he also run for a house seat in the past.

I don't get all the talk in the linked article about how people have to line up a running mate before they decide to run themselves. Is the lower half of the ticket that important? Or is it a way of keeping the competition out of the race?

In any case, Kentucky looks from the outside like a hotbed of corruption--the last two governors, one from each party, have been embroiled in scandal. The 2 current Senators don't look too good either.