Saturday, September 30, 2006

Anne Northup's "Goofy" Take On Values

Anne Northup said of John Yarmuth, "There's no evidence that John Yarmuth reflects the values that most of the families in this community reflect."

So what do Northup and her GOP brethren think are our community values? Judging by the story below, sexually explicit communications with a minor of the same sex, hypocrisy, and good old fashion cover-ups are what Anne's party seems to hold dear.

You have to wonder why Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner now feels, "The improper communications between Congressman Mark Foley and former House congressional pages is unacceptable and abhorrent. It is an obscene breach of trust" when only a few months ago, he knew about it and said absolutely nothing. Is protecting the party more important than protecting children?

Are these the values Anne Northup thinks we hold dear in Louisville? If so, then give me that wacky "liberal" toy snatching, Saddam golf playing, John Yarmuth any day.

October 1, 2006
G.O.P. Aides Knew in Late ’05 of E-Mail
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.

The exchanges began with what Republicans now describe as an “overfriendly” e-mail message from Mr. Foley to the unidentified teenager.

But news reports about the exchanges led to the disclosure of e-mail correspondence with other former pages in which the discussions became more and more sexually explicit. Shortly after he was confronted by ABC News on Friday about the subject, Mr. Foley, who represented a south Florida district, resigned from the House.

The revelations set off a political upheaval, with Democrats and some Republicans calling for a full investigation of Mr. Foley’s conduct and whether House leaders did enough to look into it. Members of the Republican leadership sought Saturday to detail how they had handled the case in an effort to defuse the situation, even as it was emerging as an issue in Congressional races.

Among those who became aware earlier this year of the fall 2005 communications between Mr. Foley and the 16-year-old page, who worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, were Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

“Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn’t want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me,” Mr. Reynolds said.

In a chronology of the episode released later on Saturday, the speaker’s office said Mr. Hastert did not recall any such discussion and had no previous knowledge of the matter. “While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds’ recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution,” the statement said.

The statement, issued after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol, said senior staff members in the speaker’s office first learned of the e-mail messages from Mr. Alexander’s office in the fall of 2005 and took steps to investigate.

Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as “overfriendly,” were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander’s page. The aides said Mr. Alexander’s office, at the request of the page’s family, did not show them copies of the messages. In those messages, sent after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident. He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.” The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as “sick.”

In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, “What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do.”

The e-mail exchanges that came to light after the first news reports were far more graphic. When he was confronted about them on Friday, Mr. Foley resigned. Republican leaders said they had not known about the other e-mail correspondence.

“No one in the speaker’s office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the Internet this week,” the statement from Mr. Hastert’s office said.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers said Saturday that Congress and the public deserved a full report on Mr. Foley’s dealings with the pages, who are high school students who serve as runners and perform other duties. The lawmakers said there should also be an inquiry into the leadership’s knowledge of his activities and its response.

“Anyone who was involved in the chain of information should come forward and tell when they were told, what they were told and what they did with the information when they got it,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King called it a “dark day” for Congress and said, “We need a full investigation.”

Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said any leader who had been aware of Mr. Foley’s behavior and failed to take action should step down. “If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership,” Mr. Shays said.

On Saturday night, the House Republican leadership issued a statement that characterized the communications between Mr. Foley and the former House pages as “unacceptable and abhorrent.”

“It is an obscene breach of trust,” the statement said. “His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system.”

The statement, from Mr. Hastert, Mr. Boehner and the majority whip, Roy Blunt, asked the board that oversees pages “to undertake a full review of the incident and propose additional safeguard measures.”

The leaders also said they had asked for specific rules governing the communications and contacts between pages and lawmakers and called for creation of a toll-free number for pages and their parents to report concerns.

Besides the leaders, other lawmakers and Congressional officers who served on the board that oversaw the page program were aware of the e-mail messages, though the Democratic lawmaker who serves on the board, Representative Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, said Saturday that he had never been informed.

According to lawmakers and the speaker’s office, the page who received the e-mail forwarded the one in which Mr. Foley, 52, asked for his picture, to a colleague in Mr. Alexander’s office, repeatedly calling it “sick” and saying it “freaked me out.”

Mr. Alexander called the boy’s parents, who, Republican leaders said Saturday, told him they did not want to pursue the matter but wanted Mr. Foley to stop.

Mr. Alexander’s office also contacted staff members in Mr. Hastert’s office for guidance on what to do and, according to the speaker’s account, his aides put Mr. Alexander’s staff in contact with the clerk of the House, who oversees the page program. The clerk, who at the time was Jeff Trandahl, referred the matter to Representative John Shimkus, the Illinois Republican who is the chairman of the House Page Board, in late 2005, a spokesman for Mr. Shimkus said.

Mr. Trandahl and Mr. Shimkus confronted Mr. Foley, who insisted he was simply acting as a mentor to the former page, officials said. He assured them nothing inappropriate had occurred.

“They asked Foley about the e-mail,” the speaker’s statement said. “Congressman Shimkus and the clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.”

The leadership had other possible avenues for investigating the e-mail messages beyond questioning Mr. Foley, including an inquiry by the ethics committee or even the Capitol police. But aides said that while the contents of the messages are disturbing in hindsight, they did not set off alarms initially.

On Saturday, Mr. Shimkus’ spokesman, Steve Tomaszewski, said, “Obviously Foley lied about the other e-mails.”

Mr. Tomaszewski said Mr. Shimkus would not comment on any other conversations he had with House leaders about the matter because it was referred to the ethics committee by a vote of the House on Friday. A spokesman for Mr. Alexander did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said Saturday that Mr. Boehner had had a “brief, nonspecific” conversation about the subject with Mr. Alexander in the spring but that he could not recall with certainty whether he had discussed it with other leaders.

Democrats moved quickly to criticize Mr. Reynolds, who while overseeing House campaigns nationally is facing the potential of a serious challenge from Jack Davis, a wealthy businessman who has vowed to spend at least $2 million of his own money in the contest. “Tom Reynolds had a moral obligation to protect our children,” said Curtis Ellis, a spokesman for Mr. Davis.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for Mr. Reynolds, said the congressman became aware of contact between Mr. Foley and the young page this past spring, when Mr. Alexander brought it to his attention. Mr. Forti said that Mr. Alexander had told Mr. Reynolds of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and the page, but that he did not show Mr. Reynolds the e-mail messages and their contents.

Strategists for both parties said it was too early to tell what impact the episode might have on Congressional elections now five weeks away but said at a minimum it could lower the already dismal public view of incumbents and discourage conservative voters.

It directly affected the race for the seat of Mr. Foley — the third Republican to resign this year under a cloud. Tim Mahoney, the Democrat who had been running an uphill and barely watched race against Mr. Foley, used the new attention to his campaign on Saturday to accuse the Republican leadership of covering up for him.

“It’s now clear from all the reports coming in from across the country that the Republican leadership team has been well aware of this problem with the pages for well over a year,” Mr. Mahoney said at a campaign stop at Palm Beach International Airport. “It looks to me that it was more important to hold onto a seat and to hold onto power than to take care of our children.”

At the Justice Department, an official said that no investigation was under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.

Several of Mr. Foley’s former colleagues demanded a criminal inquiry.

Representative Robert E. Cramer, an Alabama Democrat who was co-chairman with Mr. Foley of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, condemned Mr. Foley’s actions as “shocking and disturbing.”

“Anyone, including Foley, involved in this type of behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Mr. Cramer said.

Kate Zernike contributed reporting from New York, David Johnston from Washington and Abby Goodnough from West Palm Beach, Fla.

Northup -- The Yarmuth Obsession

On Anne's website, you'd think her News section would be filled with campaign stops, information about legislation, her work, etc. Nope, Ms. Low Self-Esteem can't run on her own merits, so even her News section is chock full of comments about John Yarmuth. The Score, as of today: Stories about Yarmuth 8 Stories about Anne 6.

See for yourself here.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Ultimate Golf Foursome -- Yarmuth, Saddam, Osama, and Kim Jong Il

I think I'd have taken this a little bit further and done a complete parody of Anne's ad about Yarmuth's stand on the issues, but this is funny in its own right.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

See a pattern here? Here's Anne's campaign strategy from 2002

Descriptions and analysis of Anne Northup's ads from 2002. It's clear that she has one mode, attack the other guy. Does she have such low self esteem that she can't campaign on her own merits?

Courier-Journal, The (Louisville, KY)
October 18, 2002
Author: Al CrossSTAFF
Estimated printed pages: 3

Analysis by Al Cross

The Courier-Journal

Candidate:Anne Northup,Republican

Election:3rd Congressional District,Nov.5

Producer:McCarthy,Marcus &Hennings


Narrator:If you ran the state budget and had a surplus,would you use the money to start a prescription program for Kentucky seniors,or build more golf courses?Jack Conway was a top aide to Governor Patton for six years. Patton and Conway chose (pause)more golf courses.Thirty-one states chose to start prescription programs for seniors.But under Patton and Conway,Kentucky spent $25 million of the surplus for golf courses,zero for a prescription program. The priorities of Jack Conway.Conway lookalike:Yeah!


Black and white shots of state Capitol dome and elderly woman with medicine.Type on screen:``Prescription program?'' then ``More golf courses?'' Color shots of golfers,,Patton and Conway with arms around each other 's shoulders at a Conway event,a golf cart heading down a fairway at sunset,a golf ball rolling into the hole,and a Conway lookalike celebrating his is labeled ``31 states start prescription programs.'' Conway lookalike swings a golf club and celebrates his drive as ``$25 Million for Golf Courses ''is superimposed. Map reappears with Kentucky highlighted and ``0 for prescription programs '' label..Conway lookalike makes and celebrates a putt as ``The Priorities of Jack Conway ''appears on screen.


This is the second ad in which Northup has blamed her Democratic challenger for the lack of a state prescription-drug benefit,a major issue at the federal level.(The Republican Party paid for the first adNorthup 's campaign is paying for this one.)While viewers may find this ad more engaging because it has a humorous bent and uses a Conway lookalike and sprightly background music,it is just as misleading as the first one,and less accurate. Contrary to the ads ' assertions,,Conway was in no position as an aide to Patton to choose whether to establish a state prescription-drug program.However,he opened himself to these attacks by saying that he helped oversee the state budget,which could imply that he played a role in writing the budget.There is no evidence of that,and Patton said in an interview this week that Conway played no such role.

It is inaccurate to say that the state spent $25 million of its 1998 surplus for golf courses, and highly misleading to suggest that the spending was an alternative to a prescription-drug program.The budget passed that year authorized $25 million in bonds,or official borrowing, for golf courses.The annual debt service for those bonds is about $2.3 million,an infinitesimal part of the overall two-year budget of $30 billion.The first-year cost of a state prescription- drug benefit proposed this year would have been about $25 million,about 11 times as much as the annual debt service for the golf courses. This ad also misleads by indicating that 31 states had started prescription programs when the state had a big surplus.By the end of 1998,no more than 14 states had started such programs.The figure of 31 is for 2000. Budget issues aside,this ad 's other aim is to more closely associate Conway with Patton, whose image and name evoke negative reactions among many voters because he is facing sex-for-favors allegations,which he has denied.Conway has not been tied to the scandal, so this ad borders on guilt by association,just as the last one did.

--Analysis by Al Cross,The Courier-Journal

Edition: MET;METRO
Section: FORUM
Page: 11A

Copyright (c) The Courier-Journal. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Gannett Co., Inc. by NewsBank, inc.
Record Number: lou2002101810080895

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

I'm not even sure of the appropriate comment here....

Click here to read a letter Anne sent to her supporters courtesy of I know how it made me react. I'd like to hear your comments.

The Yarmuth Record -- Anne's attempt to lose?

Reading some of the items Anne Northup's chosen, you have to wonder if these items are the worst she could find out of hundreds of columns. Some of the ones she chooses contain offenses that she herself is guilty of.

Take the one that she chooses this quote from:

On Anne Northup -
“Rep. Northup, Carmack said, on numerous occasions had told contributors to take a hike when they suggested she owed them her vote. He is right. I should have been more careful about the way I made my points, because his interpretation is not what I intended . . . While I certainly believe that the contributions to Northup by business interests affect her votes on certain issues, I don’t believe those contributions are made in exchange for specific votes. Rather, I believe those special interests expect Northup to vote their way more times than not. Singling her out could create the impression for some readers that I believe she is more pliable than other politicians. I don’t.”
–LEO March 28, 2001 (Upon Further Review)

In the article, John says "Sometimes people get a different impression of what you write than the one you were attempting to communicate. Sometimes it's their fault; sometimes it's the writer's." One could argue that the staffers who spent hours scouring these columns were looking for that "different impression".

But you have to wonder if they were reading closely. Anne's lackeys apparently didn't read the section of the article that said, "My greater concern about American electoral politics is that candidates can, with impunity, lie to the public about their own record and their opponents." Ring a bell, Anne?

So where is ""

Ann's latest distorted smear attack ad on John Yarmuth ends with this tag: "I'm Anne Northup and I approved this message because voters deserve to know where we stand on the issues."

Since Anne's not told us anything beyond the fact that she likes "working together", when will we get the dramatically intoned ad telling us where SHE stands on issues, or even better,

It would be nice to see her display her voting record, her written position on issues, and perhaps open up any speeches she made years ago.

I checked. It's available. If she needs help buying it, I'll do it for her. So how about it Anne, why don't you live up to the promise you made in your own ad. Let me know where YOU stand on the issues.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Anne's unspoken message -- Drinking bad -- Getting Shot at Good

Yet another out of context statement in Anne Northup's latest political smear against John Yarmuth says that he "supports lowering the drinking age".

Yarmuth didn't say he supported it, he said, "it is something we should consider". He then provides some points to ponder, such as the fact that this may lead us to have more control over drinking among that age, and perhaps even reduce the problems associated with underage drinking. He never says that he thinks every kid should be out getting drunk, or that the bars should be full of 18 year olds.

I find it ironic that Anne puts out an ominous ad about John Yarmuth's suggestion that there might be a benefit in lowering the drinking age, but seems not to have a problem with sending 18 to 20 year olds halfway around the world to fight in a fruitless war in Iraq.

Missing the point on "art"

I know Anne's a former teacher, but I'm guessing that since she so devoted to George Bush, she probably goes more with her gut than bothering to open up large books like the dictionary or trying to understand differing points of view.

She takes John Yarmuth to task for calling a picture of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung "art."

Webster's defines art as:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

If Anne had read the article, she'd have realized that it was a commentary on politicians making issues where there are none. The portrait, under the definition above, definitely is art. John doesn't call it good or great. And he doesn't say it is something he would hang on his wall. One of the points he makes, and one that any parent or former teacher should appreciate, is that openly criticizing this work as offensive, you wind up drawing more attention to the exhibit in question, and have more people going to the exhibit just to see what you criticized.

By taking this comment out of context, Anne's trying to make it look like John's somehow anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. This is something that his personality, his record, and his columns don't support. Shame on Anne for trying to play the religion card.

Money makes the world go 'round......

Look at the data below about the difference in what Anne Northup has raised vs. John Yarmuth. The money she has received from political action committees is almost as much as John's total campaign. All those special interests tossing money her way has meant that she doesn't really have to support her own campaign, given her paltry contribution of $4000 to her own efforts compared to Yarmuth's $233,000 dip into his own pocket.

That difference in money can buy a lot of negative ads in the coming months. But it makes you wonder who exactly Anne will have to repay favors to if she wins in the coming year, given that she's put a fraction of 1% of her own money into her efforts for reelection.

Anne M. Northup (R)*

Raised: $2,154,343
Spent: $332,415
Cash on hand: $1,854,187
Last Report: 6/30/2006

PACs: $813,238 (38%)
Individuals: $1,272,481 (59%)
Candidate: $4,000 (0%)
Other: $64,624 (3%)

John A. Yarmuth (D)

Raised: $854,981
Spent: $437,152
Cash on hand: $417,929
Last Report: 6/30/2006

PACs: $5,000 (1%)
Individuals: $516,679 (60%)
Candidate: $233,301 (27%)
Other: $100,001 (12%)

Monday, September 25, 2006

Northup against the First Amendment?

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

William Brennan -- Supreme Court Justice

Anne Northup seems to find fault in the Yarmuth Record with John Yarmuth's stance on flag burning. Essentially his position is that he is against it, but he'll defend your right to do so.

Anne, of course, is for legislation prohibiting it.

While this may seem like the mark of a true patriot, the true symbol of the United States is that sacred document The Constitution. Our country was founded on the belief that you should be able to air your grievances against the government. While burning the flag is a coarse, crude method of doing so, it should remain protected if we wish to continue to separate ourselves from the countries we proclaim as our enemies. To punish people who burn the flag to protest the United States or its government only dishonors the men and women who have fought so hard to protect not a flag, but an idea that free speech and the exchange of ideas is a sacred right.

Anne criticizes Yarmuth for avoiding Vietnam

As we know, Anne likes sending our boys to fight and die in a fruitless war. So its no surprise that one of the John Yarmuth she takes issue with is a 1992 LEO editorial in which he says, in part "Bill Clinton was like millions of other 22-year-old men of the era, reluctant to die in a futile war, concerned about his fellow citizens who had no options, confused by the conflict between moral and civic responsibilities. I was a 1969 college graduate, and I was prepared to use all of my wits and my family’s influence to avoid Vietnam, if not the military."

I guess Anne was willing to go had her number come up in the draft. Oh wait, I forgot, women weren't drafted.

I wonder if she's ever reflected on the actions of the man she slavishly follows, George W. Bush. I guess she assumes that W used none of his father's influence to ensure that during Vietnam he was serving when he wanted to safely at home in the Texas Air National Guard. He certainly wasn't alone among his Republican brethren in avoiding Vietnam.

Anne on Guns -- Has Anne Flip Flopped?

Anne's website The Yarmuth Record also makes an issue out of Yarmuth's obvious distaste for guns, the NRA, and the Second Amendment.

Anne's own record suggests that maybe she was once in Yarmuth's Corner.

Look at these stats from

2005 Representative Northup supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 50 percent in 2005.

2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Northup a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2003-2004 Representative Northup supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 40 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Representative Northup supported the interests of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 0 percent in 2003.

2003 Representative Northup supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 33 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

2003 Representative Northup supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 40 percent in 2003.

2002 On the votes that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Representative Northup voted their preferred position 37 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Northup a grade of B (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Representative Northup a grade of C- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2000 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Northup a grade of C (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

1999-2000 Representative Northup supported the interests of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 50 percent in 1999-2000.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Representative Northup a grade of D- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

It looks like it took awhile for Anne to come around to the party line on the issue of guns. But eventually she went from a D- to an A, and reduced her support for organizations who are anti gun. Anne notably switched sides on the issue when she voted for repealing gun limits in Washington D.C. in 2004 after voting to keep the limits in 1999.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Northup Supporters march in fear

As you read about Anne Northup's lackeys marching ahead of John Yarmuth passing out yet another piece of their smear campaign against him, you have to wonder why they're trying so hard. After all, Anne's been in office for almost 10 years. Doesn't she have a strong record she can stand on and put into nice brochures to hand out?

The truth is that Anne Northup doesn't have much to stand on, so she spends every election cycle smearing her challengers. She spends handily to attack them election after election. Ask Jack Conway. Ask Eleanor Jordan.

So instead of dignifying Northup's campaign against him, John Yarmuth should turn it around and ask the media to focus on why she won't run on her own record.

Yarmuth: Northup's ads distort positions
By Kay Stewart
The Courier-Journal

By Kay Stewart
The Courier-Journal

One day after her new ad campaign savaged his record, Democratic challenger John Yarmuth accused U.S. Rep. Anne Northup of distorting his positions, saying there's "not one accurate claim."

But during yesterday's downpour, Northup's campaign manager, Patrick Neely, countered: "That's like saying, right now, it's not raining outside."

Northup held a press conference Friday to unleash new TV and radio ads and a campaign Web site devoted solely to expose "goofy" positions she says Yarmuth has held.

She cited Yarmuth for once having endorsed abolishing Social Security, getting rid of "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, doubling the payroll tax, legalizing marijuana and lowering the drinking age.

Yarmuth didn't respond Friday to Northup's attack, instead letting his campaign manager, Jason Burke, say that none of those ideas represent Yarmuth's current positions.

Yesterday, Yarmuth, at a scheduled grand opening of his western Louisville headquarters, said he hadn't responded because he hadn't seen Northup's ads and didn't know what he would be responding to.

Yarmuth said Northup took individual statements and distorted them.

"I would be happy to explain columns I wrote," he said, adding, "This election is about where this country is going."

He said Northup needs to be held accountable for her votes on issues such as supporting the Iraq War, tax cuts and her opposition to increasing the minimum wage.

Neely said Northup will be talking about her voting record during several debates with Yarmuth next month.

Her campaign continued its focus on his record yesterday at the Fairdale Parade in southern Jefferson County, a major draw on the political campaign circuit.

Yarmuth and Northup each walked at a distance from each other in the pouring rain.

Ahead of Yarmuth's group, Northup supporters passed out fliers along the route to people huddled under umbrellas.

Headlined, "Yarmuth?" above his picture, the flier included quotes attributed to him, including one under his picture: "I don't have a lot of friends in Louisville's South End, blue collar neighborhoods either. I also don't go into those neighborhoods either."

The quote ends, "But none of these facts carry implications beyond the simple fact that I don't go there. It is undeniable that people want to be with people who have common interests."

Yarmuth said yesterday that he was addressing people's common interests, not making a statement about South Louisville.

Reporter Kay Stewart can be reached at (502) 582-4114.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?