Please sign the petition below to remove the statue of Jefferson Davis currently in Kentucky’s Capitol Rotunda, and replace it with a tribute to Muhammad Ali, “the Louisville Lip” and “the Greatest of All Time.”
I just heard from the Ali family: It is the Champ’s belief that Islam prohibits three-dimensional representations of living Muslims. Accordingly, I have adjusted the petition to call for a two-dimensional representation of Ali (a portrait, picture or mural) in lieu of a statue.
UPDATE (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)
In this interview with WHAS-TV’s Joe Arnold, Governor Steve Beshear endorses the idea of honoring Muhammad Ali in the State Capitol (although he disagrees with removing Davis). Arnold explores the idea further on his weekly show, “The Powers that Be.”
Click here to check out WDRB-TV’s Lawrence Smith’s coverage of the story.
And here’s my op-ed in Ali’s hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal.
UPDATE (Saturday, June 4, 2016)
In the wake of the 2015 Charlestown tragedy, in which a Confederate flag-waving murderer united the nation against racism, all of the most powerful Kentucky policymakers — U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, Governor Matt Bevin, Senate President Robert Stivers and House Speaker Greg Stumbo — called for the removal of the Davis statue from the Rotunda. Today, as we commemorate last night’s passing of Muhammad Ali, there is no better moment to replace the symbol of Kentucky’s worst era with a tribute to The Greatest of All Time.
UPDATE (Wednesday, June 8, 2016):
Great piece by Lawrence Smith of WDRB-TV in Louisville on the petition drive to replace Jefferson Davis’ statue in the Capitol Rotunda with a tribute to Muhammad Ali.
UPDATE (Thursday, June 9, 2016):
Excellent piece on the petition drive by Jack Brammer that was featured on the front page of the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Highlight of the article:
Miller said he has received a few “angry comments” on his call to honor Ali.
“One of them encouraged me to kill myself,” he said. “You can quote me that I have decided not to take their advice.”
UPDATE (Friday, June 10, 2016)
The petition drives continues to show the Big Mo(hammed): check out these stories from WKYU-FM public radio in Bowling Green and WKYT-TV, Channel 27 in Lexington:
UPDATE (Saturday, June 11, 2016):
Still not convinced? Check out this excerpt from today’s New York Times:
By Jordan Stivers, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM ET
Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan for a running mate reminds me of John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin to appease the far right of the Republican party that has become increasingly influential since 2008.
While Paul Ryan has far more substantive experience and ability to lead than Palin, I believe his views are just as extreme.
McCain and Romney were both considered moderates based on their records, and felt pressured to pick someone to the far right instead of someone who shares their ability to act in a bipartisan manner.
It makes me realize how warped the political arena must be that being a moderate is a bad thing.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
The first thing I thought of when I Googled news of Paul Ryan being Mitt Romney’s choice for VP was “He looks like Romney’s Mini Me.” I thought I’d start off my post with this observation but decided to Google “Paul Ryan and Mini Me” to make sure no one else had used it already. Apparently, Mitt Romney had. Reportedly, Mitt when informing Ryan of his choice said, “Mini Me, you complete me.” Which is an even funnier than what I was going to say using the Mini Me line. So, I’ll just leave it at that. I can’t improve on Mitt’s own words. Just read them and pretend like Mitt was joking. Hilarious!!
Things like that seem to happen to Mitt a lot. He intends for things to be taken one way, and they end up being taken the other, more obvious way. It’s an endearing quality because Mitt isn’t doing it as an act. It’s sweet. It humanizes him. Really.
I suspect with his VP choice Mitt was trying to emulate the most successful VP pick in modern presidential campaigns: Bill Clinton’s choice of Al Gore. It was a surprising and bold move –and like Mitt done by a challenger running against an incumbent president. It created momentum because it reinforced Clinton’s personal brand (DLC democrat) and “just worked” despite politically logical reasons to go a different way. Clinton, of course, didn’t say to Al, “Mini Me, you complete me.” And the pair went on to win the presidency and vice-presidency and govern for 8 years.
I think Mitt was trying for this same formula but, again, shanked it. Sure, Ryan is similar to Romney but not in a way that creates electoral dynamism. He comes off more like Mitt’s younger brother who majored in economics instead of finance as opposed to a fun and synergistic compliment to Mitt. But there are those who could have fit that bill. In my opinion the obvious selection for Mitt’s VP who could have provided the same electoral dynamism we saw in 1996, is obvious. Bill Paxton, star of HBO’s Big Love.
Paxton, like Romney, is an outsider and Mormon. He’s a very successful no-nonsense businessman whose small business expertise could temper Romney’s narrow business image as more of a financier than everyday American businessperson, like Paxton’s character. Paxton also has cross-over appeal to democrats—both male and female. When polled, democratic males 18-85 answered “D” by an overwhelming majority to the question, “Which one of Bill Paxton’s wive’s is the hottest? A) Barb, B) Nicki, C) Margi or D) All of them? And another overwhelming majority of democratic males answered “yes,” to the follow up poll question, “If a republican vice presidential candidate could juggle three hotties and still pay all the bills, would you be more likely to vote for that ticket?”
Conversely, female voters from both parties polled about Paxton scored him high on “security issues,” “pro-life,” “immigration,” “family values” and “ideal second husband” (interestingly, polling data showed the fact he’d have to be shared with three other women can be a plus for a second husband). And both male and female voters from both parties felt Paxton’s ability to maneuver the temperamental ingénue Margi was a good indication he could work with House of Representatives. A similar percentage believed having managed to keep the attractive but matronly Barb happy all these years showed Paxton could deal adeptly with Sen Mitch McConnell’s dryly sensible and scolding leadership style. And the fact that Paxton seemed to keep Nicki (Chloë Sevigny) happy as a sister-wife had no political significance according the polling, but almost all polled considered it “friggin’ amazing.”
Other pluses of a Paxton choice for veep is that he has a casual yet connected air about him to contrast with what some consider Romney’s uptight remoteness. Everyone knows Utah (where Big Love is set) is the country’s most conservative state. So Paxton could simultaneously burnish Romney’s conservative bona fides while also eating into democrats Hollywood’s fundraising edge.
Of course, polygamy has been outlawed by the Morman faith and it’s supposed to be politically incorrect (even taboo) to ever mention it was part of the Mormon faith tradition. But in this context it is a clear political plus. I mean, c’mom, let’s be serious. Does anyone believe Joe Biden is suave enough to handle 3 wives?! In the upcoming Centre College debate, Paxton wouldn’t even have to be very knowledgeable about policy. He could merely try to convince voters that Mitt Romney really is a lot like his character in Big Love and it would be a blowout of Biden. An ad running before the debate with each of the sister-wives starting into the camera saying, “Joe Biden, I know Bill Hendrickson (Paxton’s character in Big Love), Bill Hendrickson is a husband of mine. Mr Biden, you are no Bill Hendrickson” would be a potential knock-out punch. A republican Lloyd Bentsen moment on steroids –and Viagra. Even better it would benefit the presidential candidate, Romney, even more than the vice-presidential candidate.
And here’s the beauty part. Romney, when notifying Paxton of his choice could still have said, “Mini Me, you complete me.” And Paxton is so cool that everyone would have taken it as a hilarious insider Hollywood joke. Romney would have realized that he stumbled into a brilliant comment that was genuinely funny. And started laughing himself at how inadvertently hysterical he was. And if all that happened standing on stage next to Bill Paxton, it would have been Mitt Romney’s finest, funnest and most human moment in the campaign. And in an odd way, would have perhaps been Mitt’s most “presidential” moment of the campaign yet.
Heck, even conservatives would have to admit they kinda liked Romney on that night.
By Artur Davis, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:30 AM ET
I will offer the obligatory caveat: I know Paul Ryan from serving with him on two congressional committees for all eight years I served in the House. It is not fair to call him a friend, at least not in the way human beings who aren’t politicians use that term, but I liked him a great deal. I liked the little things– when he engaged you in conversation, you had his attention and his eyes didn’t drift in search of a more powerful member, or a potential donor– and I admired the more consequential things, like his genuine smarts and the fact that when he spoke on the floor or in hearings, you heard the product of an active mind that didn’t need ghostwriting or lobbyist drafted talking points.
Frankly, I don’t know the politics of the pick. The Obama campaign is way too thrilled at this announcement for me to attribute it just to gamesmanship or wishfulness: they know that the Ryan budget plan has not polled well, that its realignment of Medicare unsettles seniors, and that to some independents (and Newt Gingrich) it looks more like ideological engineering than a response to our current bout of economic stagnation. A campaign that just wrapped a woman’s death around Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, facts be damned, will not shrink from painting Ryan as a cold-blooded, Ayn Rand inspired radical who puts theory over people.
My hope, as someone who wants this ticket to win, is that Paul Ryan, an imminently decent and pleasant man, will look to Americans nothing like the caricature that Democrats are about to paint. The campaigner who has won easily in a district Barack Obama carried has the raw ability to make a case that his budget really is a blueprint for a shared prosperity. I also think he can and will point out that an entitlement structure built for a population that rarely lived past seventy has to be refitted for a future where octogenarians are the fastest rising age demographic; that universal, one size fits all Medicare coverage has always been more a political bribe to sustain support than some solemn moral commitment; that government overpromising its capacities is itself immoral; and that the first casualties of an entitlement train-wreck would be the poor and the vulnerable, and that they above all need the current compact to be amended so its best parts can survive.
My other hopes are that Paul Ryan’s reformer instincts aren’t just built around budgets. Conservatism needs to adopt education reform as a cause, not as a wedge against the selfishness of teachers unions, but as the most effective instrument to reduce inequality. Conservatism needs not just to repeal Obamacare but to replace it with a market based correction to the inadequacies of the status quo. The political right has to reclaim legal immigration as a point of pride and to distance itself from overheated claims about “us” losing “our” culture: that means much less talk about “self-deportation” crusades against illegals, much more confidence in assimilation, much more focus on an immigration regime that privileges individual responsibility and families.
The guy I admired from across the aisle and sometimes chatted with gets all of the above. I also think that Ryan knows that his party’s (and now my party’s) future rests on conservatism growing and adapting to a changed economic world in a way that liberalism never has.
So, without minimizing the risk in claiming a space that Democrats have effectively attacked for years, I felt inspired seeing Paul Ryan rise from obscurity to the epicenter of politics in the last 24 hours. If this ends well, a campaign that has been accused of running a prevent defense without being ahead may have just made a downpayment on its party’s future.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET
I agree with Tom that it is a shame that Romney feels the need to tack further to the right.
I would go even further to say I am sorry that two smart people such as Romney and Ryan have so little regard for logic and good sense (and for the public’s intelligence) that they think no one will notice as they try simultaneously to decry debt and push plans that will only make it worse.
Meanwhile the President claims to care about entitlement reform but offers no plan.
Both sides are banking on the ignorance and biases of their most fervent supporters.
By Jimmy Dahroug, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM ET
As a fan of Christopher Guest Movies, I was pretty pleased.
I always thought Mitt Romney resembled Fred Willard.
Paul Ryan looks a bit like John Michael Higgins, another Christopher Guest Alum.
Sure, I kind of see Jake Gyllenhaal, or the guy who plays Gabe on The Office.
Just watch Best in Show or A Mighty Wind – then we can have a real debate!
As a strategist, I was pretty shocked.
Paul Ryan was one of the last people I thought Romney would choose. In my mind, it really came down to Portman and Rubio.
I think Romney already had the base on board (due in part to the Supreme Court ruling) – and Portman or Rubio (among others) could have helped pleased the conservative as well as helped in other ways and without exposing Romney to such risk.
In terms of substance, I’m not even sure Romney shares that much in common with Paul Ryan. While both would like to call themselves fiscal conservatives – Romney can be considered pragmatic, and his risks are calculated. That’s just not Paul Ryan.
From what I can see, Ryan poses such unnecessary risk. There may be some critical information we’re just not privy to – even intangibles like chemistry, rapport… Those qualities do matter.
Still – this is a big risk for Romney.
As a Democrat, I hope the Obama team does not underestimate Paul Ryan.
1. Due in part to economic uncertainty, voters took a chance on Obama in 2008. Although Obama can argue the Country would have been worse off without his actions in office, voters are still feeling a challenging economy. They may be willing to take a risk with Ryan when they wouldn’t at any other time.
2. Paul Ryan, himself, is prepared and effective. He simply should not be underestimated.
No matter how confident the Obama team is in the substance of its arguments against Paul Ryan, they cannot take him lightly.
Ryan is not the caricature fire-breathing conservative that is supposed to scare kids and small animals. He won’t raise his voice like Chris Christie. Paul Ryan will listen and he will calmly and respectfully respond.
Saying Paul Ryan does his homework is an understatement. Agree with Ryan or not, he knows the details and the big picture. He’ll anticipate every argument Democrats can make and he’ll be prepared to respond. The Obama team needs to be just as prepared.
In 1980, the Carter campaign painted Reagan as a dangerous extremist. What the American people saw was a pleasant man who didn’t seem at all like the monster they had come to expect.
To be clear, I do not believe Paul Ryan is the political athlete Ronald Reagan was. But let’s not give him the opportunity to appear anywhere close to it.
3. Finally – It is not in Mitt Romney’s nature to make erratic decisions. Although I don’t quite understand this pick, Romney is too methodical to make a choice like this without gaming out all the options and consequences.
Surely he thoroughly considered that Democrats would pounce on Ryan over medicare. Could it be that Romney would rather have the scrutiny on his Veep pick so that it takes the target off of him and Bain? The idea being that Democrats make Ryan their target (the Veep spot has always been obscure to voters), and the target is no longer Romney and Bain?
It’s a theory I haven’t fully explored it – but Ryan/Medicare seems to have already left Romney/Bain in the dust, and I don’t see that changing very soon.
By Michael Steele, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
Mitt Romney’s vice presidential selection was on its face a very good one—solid, strong and perhaps riskier than it needed to be. Less a “bold choice” (sorry Bill Kristol) and certainly not a “maverick pick” the choice of Paul Ryan was, at least for Mitt Romney, appropriate. For months, Romney and his campaign were beset by pundits, Establishment types and wannabe prognosticators divining who he would or should pick. From safe to out-of-the-box, names were all over the place; an no name wasn’t good enough to suggest (Kim Kardashian. Really?). But in the end Mitt knew what he wanted—he wanted it all! And in Paul Ryan he gets a little Rob Portman and Bobby Jindal (policy wonk), Tim Pawlenty (GOP grassroots, Sam’s Club Republicanism) and even Marco Rubio (Tea Party appeal).
Just as significant is that Romney, by choosing Ryan, has clearly decided to reset the narrative in his race with President Obama. And here’s where the wheels can come off pretty quick. For the past 4 months or so, the Romney campaign has argued, pushed and even distorted the facts to make the point that this election is a referendum on the Obama years. Sure Obama was dealt a bad set of cards, the argument goes, but leadership—especially presidential leadership is about what you do with the cards you are dealt. For Romney, the president just didn’t know how to play his hand. But in selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt has given the president a new set of cards.
Starting now, this race is no longer a referendum on Obama but rather a choice between Obama (“Status Quo Liberalism”) and Romney (“Reform Conservatism”). It appears the Romney-Ryan campaign is ready to make this argument and the Obama-Biden campaign can’t wait for it. In addition to jobs and the economy Romney now wants a broader debate about big ideas and even bigger policies, hence the Ryan selection, and is counting on Paul Ryan’s smarts and bookish charms to dissect Obama and Biden. But Paul Ryan and his budget have also given the president an opportunity to make the race not just about Bain Capital and Romney’s tax returns (you really didn’t expect them to give those up, did you?) but also about a return to “trickle-down economics” and “ending [fill in the blank] as we know it,” claims Republicans at least up to now have not been able to respond to effectively.
And in an ironic political twist, both campaigns are happy with this pick (at least for the moment). Republicans (especially conservatives) are excited to know a budget hawk would be a heartbeat away from the oval office; and Democrats are smiling like Cheshire cats because a budget hawk is a heartbeat away from Mitt Romney.
But all of this excitement about Paul Ryan being picked reminds me of the Jeff Goldblum quote from the Lost World: Jurassic Park in responding to how excited everyone was to be at Jurassic Park: “That’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming.”
It’s hard to add much except to say this: You will hear the phrase “No one over 55 will be impacted” more than you heard Al Gore say “lockbox.” And of course from the other side you will hear the incessant “end of Medicare as you know it” refrain. The victor of that argument will likely win the election.
Amid annual trillion dollar deficits and the nation’s debt rating downgrade, I suspect that Americans are somewhat more willing than before to hear a serious conversation about our nation’s troubled finances.
But in order to prevail in that argument, Romney must tweak the Ryan plan to reduce the benefits for the wealthy and shift money towards deficit reduction. Only then would he be able to capture the moral high road.
However, doing so would alienate the very conservative pundit class that the Ryan pick has appeased, which is why I find it quite unlikely.
I served with Paul Ryan for 10 of my 12 years in Congress, and 4 years together on the House Budget Committee.
Paul is bright, pleasant, hard-working—a real gentleman.
But he is also an ideologue, inspired by Ayn Rand, fiercely opposed to federal spending and a passionate believer in the power of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth in all circumstances.
The budget proposals he has presented the last three years reduce taxes for the wealthy, and services (and tax breaks) for the middle class.
Ryan is a small government conservative; not a deficit hawk.
Ryan is also a high risk choice for Romney; his campaign must be gambling that Ryan’s ideas will not be well enough understood to hurt Romney’s chances. Since ideas get trivialized and trampled by media coverage anyway, they may be right.
It is a sad commentary on our dysfunctional politics that the Republican nominee felt he had to choose someone on the right wing of the party rather than reach out to the middle of the electorate.
By Jonathan Miller, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
1. Maybe, just maybe, the presidential debate will turn substantive: The past few weeks have seen some of the most disgusting and despicable campaign charges in recent memory — from the Obama Super PAC implying that Romney killed a man’s wife to Romney’s completely mendacious claim that Obama is eliminating the work requirement from Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. The choice of Paul Ryan places his economic policy vision on the front stage, and allows the country to witness a thorough, meaningful debate on whether FDR’s Welfare State should survive this Age of Austerity. It will also put in clear focus one of the critical themes of modern America — growing income inequality — and I hope will force the Obama campaign to develop concrete plans to deal with it.
2. Mitt Romney’s campaign could be the next victim of the “Aspen Curse”: As an Obama supporter, it is comforting to know that the “Aspen Curse” — which victimized me and so many of my friends — could turn on Mitt Romney. As I detailed in this piece a few months ago, I was the member of the Inaugural Class of the Aspen Institute’s Rodel Fellows program, that brought together young political leaders from across the country for bipartisan dialogue. Unfortunately, every one of us that sought major statewide office over the next several years lost — from contributing RP Michael Steele to New Jersey’s Tom Kean to Missouri’s Robin Carnahan to most recently Nebraska’s Jon Bruning. Paul Ryan, and seven other young incumbent Congressman, were originally named to our class; but due to their busy schedules and strict Congressional ethics rules, Aspen dropped Congressmen from the program. Still, the Aspen Curse victimized sorta-Rodel-Fellows Florida’s Kendrick Meek when he ran for the U.S. Senate and contributing RP Artur Davis when he ran for Alabama’s Governor. So maybe too Paul Ryan will meet the same fate.
3. It demonstrates that the Romney campaign is in trouble. As nearly every insta-analyst of the pick has agreed, Paul Ryan was the riskiest pick among the VP finalists, which included former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and my spring prediction, Ohio Senator Rob Portman. Romney and his campaign have been playing it safe since the beginning of the primary season, avoiding controversy whenever possible. The Ryan pick indicates that they felt they needed to shake up the dynamic that has Obama up 7-9 points in national polls, despite their looming cash advantage.
4. It is great news for Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. The tiny, extraordinary school, which hosted the 2000 Vice-Presidential debate, will get its second chance to be in the world’s spotlight this fall. Having a debate between two bright, spirited men, with deeply contrasting visions of the country’s economic future, will lift the debate in significance and historical weight. It will be another great moment for small town Kentucky.
5. It is great news for my daughter, Emily. Of course, I personally view this as #1. As Emily heads next week to freshman orientation at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, her outstanding choice of higher education will rise in national attention as the alma mater of the GOP Vice Presidential nominee. Moreover, I’m thrilled that the presidential campaign will become a central part of campus dialogue, making Emily’s first experience in the voting booth — casting her ballot for Barack Obama — all the more special.
6. (UPDATED) Of the four men on the two major presidential tickets, the only Protestant is the..uh..”Muslim”
Blog this!
