Recently in Oklahoma::Politics Category

Mike McCarville has two stories from the State Capitol about dissatisfaction among rank-and-file Republican members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives with the way Speaker Kris Steele is using (or abusing) his power. Steele has one year remaining as speaker. Republicans have already picked T. W. Shannon to succeed Steele in 2013; they rejected Steele's anointed successor, Jeff Hickman.

Back in early November, Steele removed Broken Arrow Rep. John Trebilcock from his chairmanship of the Energy and Utility Regulation Committee. Trebilcock wrote on Facebook on November 4:

Speaker Kirs Steele just removed me as Chairman of the Energy Committee. Clearly, if I had supported his choice in the recent Speaker's race to replace him, I would remain as chairman. This is unacceptable Pay to Play trading of votes and punishing members for voting their conscience. Extremely saddened that someone i once considered a friend has let his office diminish him as a person.

The Republican caucus's retreat in Shawnee this week would have been the opportunity for members to air these sorts of concerns, but instead it's reported that Steele filled the meetings with presentations and position papers, limiting any opportunity for discussion to the tail end of the retreat. Panhandle Rep. Gus Blackwell wrote a scathing email to his colleagues protesting the way the meeting was conducted:

Obviously, our caucus retreat was not intended to be an opportunity for our caucus to discuss, debate, or decide policy. Instead, our caucus meetings have become carefully orchestrated and planned events, with little or no time for the actual discussion of caucus business.

The 2011 Republican Caucus Retreat in Shawnee stands as an outstanding example of what I am writing in this email. After a first day of tours and dinner, no caucus business was transacted. The second day had time for a breakfast with a political presentation, a 30-minute museum tour and five and one-half hours of other presentations, before staff was asked to leave and we actually began "caucus business." Our discussions as a caucus lasted less than 45 minutes out of the over 15 hours of scheduled activity.

Blackwell finally had the floor, at the very end of that 45 minutes, to discuss the removal of Trebilcock and Steele's firings of senior House staff, but after 10 minutes he was cut off by a hasty motion to adjourn:

As a senior member, who has been Acting Speaker, Speaker Pro-Tempore, Chair of three different committees, and who has served on every Republican leadership team except the present one, I would think I would be allowed to have more than two responses to speak on a topic I requested be discussed and which strikes to the very core of how we operate as a majority. However, I wasn't, neither was Rep. Trebilcock or any other members of the caucus.

An anonymous blog (caveat lector) called Oklahoma Truth Council has a description of those final minutes of the caucus retreat:

Before Steele could counter the accusation that he punished Trebilcock and in turn lied to the entire Caucus body about it, another Representative stepped in trying to diffuse the controversy. Apparently, Rep. David Dank couldn't stomach the conflict and consternation in the room and attempted to end the meeting. Seeing that the Caucus was obviously still divided by the heated Speaker-elect race, Rep. Weldon Watson, Republican Caucus Chair, agreed with Dank and gaveled the meeting closed.

This is where things get even more interesting. House leadership allegedly tried to end the Caucus meeting without a vote, just by fiat. When those wanting to take Steele out for a walk over his mafia style leadership skills raised the point that Caucus can't end without a vote due to a tabling motion, Watson held a vote, but only allowed legislators to vote in the affirmative and then again gaveled the meeting closed while legislators fumed.

Thus the reference to the "half-voted on" adjournment motion and Dank carrying a bucket in Blackwell's email.

(UPDATE: Peter Rudy (@WatchdogOK) tweets to say that bucket of honey also refers to a statement made by Dank in the Tax Credit Task Force hearings: "Dank says the task force isn't anti-business and doesn't think all tax credits are bad. But he went on to compare some tax credits to 'the huckster who took a bucket of manure, put a layer of honey on top and sold it as a bucket of honey' to taxpayers.")

The limited opportunity to debate and discuss led Oklahoma City Rep. Mike Reynolds to call for the Oklahoma Republican Party to set the rules for the caucus:

"The recent caucus was just another example of the abuse of members time for the speakers convenience. Discussion was supposed to occur about the House agenda during the upcoming session. Instead the Speaker chose to present position papers on what were apparently his favorite subjects. While they may have been informative, that is not why most members chose to take the time to participate in this meeting. Had these position papers been presented on the House floor there is no doubt the Speaker would have asked his close associates to 'move the previous question' to cut off debate.

"There appears to be only one way to eliminate the arrogance that is displayed by this leadership team. The caucus rules of the House Republicans must be drafted by the Oklahoma Republican Party. This will allow for meetings open to the public and honest discussion, rather than intimidation and statements that might not be factual, but can't be discussed outside of caucus because of 'confidentiality rules.'

I didn't like this style of operation when the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the legislature, and I don't like it any better when Republicans do it. It's bad enough for major policy decisions to be made in caucus, behind closed doors, out of the public eye, with the expectation that party members will uphold the caucus's decisions on the House floor. It's worse when the caucus isn't given opportunity for debate, but are expected to follow the decisions of an even smaller and more closed group, the leadership team, under threat of losing committee chairmanships, being denied a fair hearing for their legislation, or having leadership recruit and finance a primary opponent.

It seems to me that legislative leaders who use these heavy-handed tactics do so because their motives, goals, and actions won't stand up to public scrutiny. It looks like a classic battle between fair-dealers (those Republicans who believe in limited government with everyone playing by the same rules) and wheeler-dealers (those RINOs who would use government power to benefit their cronies, who in turn fund the continuation of their political power).

Every member of the State House represents the same number of people. Every member deserves to have his bills heard and to speak his mind, even if he's a member of the minority party or a member of the majority party on the outs with his own leadership. It's a matter of showing due respect to the citizens who elected him. Legislative leadership ought to be about facilitating the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority, not extorting obedience.

Back in May 1989, I recall watching an amazing event on OETA's weekly legislative highlights show. A 30-year-old Democrat State Rep. from Claremore, Dwayne Steidley, had moved to declare the speaker's chair vacant -- a revolt by disaffected Democrats against an increasingly autocratic House leadership under Democratic Speaker Jim Barker and Majority Leader Guy Davis.

What most impressed and appalled me was a speech by Poteau Rep. Jim Hamilton, who urged his fellow Democrats to settle their disagreements with Barker within the privacy of the caucus, not out in front of everyone. I recall Hamilton speaking about his own act of disloyalty to the caucus in the past and how he was rightly punished for it. I described the debate in a lengthy email to a couple of friends and wrote that Hamilton deserved the Li Peng Faithful Party Hack award for his performance.

In 1989, Democrats held a 69-32 advantage in the House. But in the previous election cycle, 12 incumbent Democrats had been beaten by candidates running as reformers, not beholden to Barker. When the vote to oust Barker was taken, only 25 Democrats stuck with him; the rest joined with the Republicans to give him the sack by a vote of 72-25. Of the 26 freshmen in the Legislature, 24 voted to boot Barker. (Freshmen were rarer in those days before term limits.)

Reading news stories at the time, it's clear that tactics like those
being complained about today were at the root of the revolt:

""We didn't expect to be in the speaker's office every week or down with the governor, but we represent a district, and those people are entitled to input,'' said state Rep. Gary Maxey, D-Enid, a former Garfield County special district judge.

Maxey, who defeated eight-year incumbent Homer Rieger, said he entered the House hoping to listen and learn.

But it soon became apparent that a large group in the House was not involved in the process, said Maxey, 34.

From an Oklahoman editorial after the ouster:

Standing in the shambles of his once all-powerful leadership team, Barker, the feisty, diminutive Democrat from Muskogee, was unbowed. He accepted his historic ouster with class. But he couldn't resist pointing out the House members never could have pulled if off in a secret, Democratic caucus with no Republicans to help and no recorded votes.

Statements by Davis showed even more disregard for the rights of the minority party, or for the majority opinion of the Democrats and Republicans in the House, for that matter. As a member of the leadership team, Davis said, "You have to put pressure on people to do things that they really don't want to do, and then sometimes the leadership makes decisions that the membership don't agree with.''

He told his local newspaper, The Durant Democrat, that "you have to twist arms to get votes ... The role I had called for me to be tough, to do what was necessary to keep the thing moving, to get the votes when it was necessary ... '' After almost six years of playing ball, meekly following the leader like sheep or caving in under the political pressure, most House members finally had enough and staged the successful rebellion.

A story a week before the revolt, about the defeat of a rules change backed by the Speaker, a harbinger of his ultimate defeat, noted that the Speaker had held only one Democratic caucus meeting that year. It also mentions accusations that Speaker Barker had used his power to retaliate against members who had challenged him publicly:

Many of those same members who supported [Cal] Hobson [for a leadership post] -- Reps. Linda Larason of Oklahoma City, Carolyn Thompson of Norman and Don Ross and Don McCorkell of Tulsa -- got together again in March to sign a letter to Barker asking him not to link higher education funding to criticism of the Legislature by a state regent.

That incident was also seen as a challenge to Barker and may have set up what happened in the last week.

Most of the people who signed the letter were left off the budget-writing conference committee, perhaps the most important committee at the Capitol.

Barker denied that they were being punished, though some of them thought otherwise and were more than a little upset about it.

The same patterns seem to be at work, now that Republicans have almost as overwhelming a majority as the Democrats did 22 years ago. If voters get the sense that their Republican representatives are sacrificing the best interest of Oklahoma for the sake of favor with the Speaker and his corporate sponsors, they're likely to replace their reps with more independent thinkers, or they may dump the GOP altogether. It happened before, and it could happen again.

I'd like to think that Republicans are smart enough and ethical enough to avoid the same traps that tripped up the Democrats, but we saw in 2006 at the Federal level that that isn't true. But perhaps, if grassroots Republicans put the pressure on their state representatives to work for openness and fair dealing in the caucus, we'll avoid the same fate here in Oklahoma.

NOTE: The links above to Daily Oklahoman stories from 1989 about the Jim Barker ouster are available to Tulsa Library cardholders via NewsBank.

Dear Sen. Coburn,

Today, Monday, December 5, 2011, marks the opening of the three-day filing period for school board seats in Oklahoma. It's also the filing period for Oklahoma's March 6, 2012, presidential preference primary. I am writing to urge you to file, to put your name on the Oklahoma ballot as a "favorite son" candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

In 40 years of watching presidential politics, I've never seen so many credible candidates leave the race (Pawlenty, Cain) or rule themselves out (Daniels, Ryan, Christie, Palin, Giuliani, Jindal, Jeb Bush, etc.) so early in the process, before a single real vote has been cast. At the same time, I've never seen Republican activists so reluctant to commit to a candidate. We're wary of investing our time, our money, and our hearts in a candidate that won't stay in the race for long. Here in Oklahoma, we're used to having our choices severely narrowed before our turn to vote; in 2012, Iowa and New Hampshire may know the same experience.

The remaining options are less than attractive. Mitt Romney is not a reliable conservative on any issue. Rick Santorum couldn't win re-election in his own state, and he endorsed RINO Arlen Specter for reelection over a solid fiscal conservative primary challenger, Pat Toomey, in 2004. Rick Perry can't seem to think on his feet, and there are some trouble things in his record as governor, as recent as his obstruction, subtle but effective, of Rep. David Simpson's anti-TSA-groping bill. Michele Bachmann says all the right words but doesn't display much depth of thought. Jon Huntsman seems to be more interested in impressing the mainstream media than connecting with the Republican base.

Ron "Free Bananas!" Paul's foreign policy views are naive and dangerous. In every interview I've heard of Gary Johnson, he seems to have a terminal case of the giggles. As incumbent governor of Louisiana, Buddy Roemer finished third to a crook (Edwin Edwards) and a Klansman (David Duke), and finished fourth in a comeback try four years later. Roemer naively believes that limiting campaign contributions will limit the influence of money in politics, but as long as politics has so much power to influence results in the private sector, money will find a way to flow into politics.

Newt Gingrich is the leading anti-Romney of the moment. Gingrich has serious character problems, of which his serial polygyny is a mere symptom. (Isn't it ironic that the Mormon in the race, not the Baptist-turned-Cathoic, is the husband of one wife?) As you documented in your book Breach of Trust (and Bob Novak in his autobiography), Gingrich's character flaws extended to his leadership of the House of Representatives. For all his brilliance in the 1994 campaign to retake the House, his failures as speaker turned the Republican caucus from principled reform to careerism for the sake of power, laying the groundwork for the moral collapse of the Republican majority, the Pelosi speakership, the Obama presidency, and our current fiscal crisis.

Beyond his failures as a husband and as a congressional leader, Gingrich is a big-government conservative in an era where government must shrink to make space for private sector can grow. Being a visionary is a fine thing in the private sector, but as a self-proclaimed "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," Newt offers big ideas that depend upon massive government investment and intervention.

Sen. Coburn, you expressed your worries about Gingrich as recently as Sunday morning:

"The thing is there are all type of leaders. Leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people they are leading and different standard for themselves," Coburn said on Fox News Sunday. "I found his leadership lacking."

The best hope for across-the-board (fiscal, social, and defense) conservatives is for another candidate to emerge, but it's too late (believe it or not) for another candidate to enter and compete effectively in the primaries. Filing deadlines have already passed for New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Missouri. Oklahoma, Ohio, Louisiana, and Michigan close filing this week. By the time we know the result in New Hampshire, even more deadlines will have passed. Although Iowa has no filing deadline (the caucus straw poll is not binding), a win there would require creating a grassroots GOTV organization ex nihilo in less than a month.

But there is still a way for a "player to be named later" to become the Republican nominee. "Favorite son" candidates could file in each state, giving Republican voters a way to vote for "None of the Above" and to deny a majority of delegates to any of the currently active candidates, none of whom seem to have the right stuff to win the nomination, win the general election, and then steer the country decisively away from the fiscal Niagara Falls just around the next bend in the river.

I'm asking you, Sen. Coburn, to run in Oklahoma's primary as our favorite son.

Sure, any random Republican with the intention of serving as a placeholder for "None of the Above" could cut a check for $2,500 to put his name on the ballot. But Joe Random would have to raise huge amounts of money to publicize his reasons for running and to convince Oklahoma voters that he could be trusted with their votes.

You wouldn't have that problem, Sen. Coburn. The media, both local and national, would give a Coburn favorite son candidacy significant coverage. Oklahoma Republican voters already know and trust you (your TARP vote notwithstanding -- an error, but well-intentioned), and they know you are not driven by a lust for power. And if a win in Oklahoma turned into a national groundswell for a Coburn nomination, the vast majority of Oklahoma Republicans and fiscal conservatives nationwide would be very, very pleased.

If you should win the Oklahoma primary, as I expect you would, Oklahoma's 43 delegates would give you a seat at the table in deciding the outcome of a deadlocked national convention, helping to ensure that the Republican nominee is someone who understands the fiscal crisis that looms over our nation and who is prepared to act decisively to deal with it.

Please think it over, Sen. Coburn. Talk to your wife, your children, your closest advisers. Pray about it. Then get someone to the State Capitol, Room B-6, by Wednesday at 5 with a notarized form and a cashier's check for $2,500 -- for Oklahoma's sake, for America's sake.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Bates

P. S. Cole Hargrave Snodgrass and Associates has a poll (311 Republican primary voters, Nov. 29 - Dec. 1, 2011, margin of error: +/- 4.3%) showing Gingrich with a commanding lead in Oklahoma -- 39% for Gingrich, everyone else in single digits, and 21% undecided. In August, Gingrich was at 5%. If you don't want Gingrich's lacking leadership at the top of the Republican ticket next fall, Sen. Coburn, you need to give voters a better alternative now.

Photo of Tom Coburn by Flickr user Medill DC, used under Creative Commons license.

BatesLine is pleased to welcome an ad from the Oklahoma Republican Party for the 2012 Oklahoma Straw Poll:

As we recently announced, the Oklahoma Republican Party is holding our inaugural Oklahoma Straw Poll. Many states hold presidential straw polls every four years creating national publicity and financial support for their respective state, but we thought it was about time the reddest state in the country had one of its own!

Straw polls are important because many times they serve as the first indicator of the strength of a candidate's organization and message.

We want to give Republicans from all across Oklahoma an opportunity to make their voice heard.

From November 21st until December 5th, donate $5 to the OKGOP to vote in the Oklahoma Straw Poll. Many Straw Poll voters can end up paying hundreds with travel costs, etc in order to vote in their states' poll, but we are making a way for you to support your candidate and do it from the comfort of your own living room!

The deadline for voting in the Oklahoma Straw Poll is Monday, December 5, 2011, at 5:00 pm. Click the ad at the top of the page to vote.

This is a great opportunity for Oklahoma Republicans to have a voice, and the money goes to a good cause. Whatever you may or may not like about the national party, the Oklahoma Republican Party is a low-overhead, grassroots-run organization that has produced amazing results.

There's a reason that the Republican nominee won all 77 counties in 2004 and 2008, that Republicans swept all statewide offices in 2010, and controls supermajorities of both houses of the legislature, after decades in the minority. Yes, Oklahoma voters are conservative, but a voter's views make no difference unless that voter turns out on Election Day. After a disheartening defeat in 2002, Oklahoma Republicans elected Gary Jones (now our State Auditor) as chairman, and Jones instituted a massive turnout effort for 2004, involving hundreds, perhaps, thousands, of local volunteers dropping voter information packets on the doorstep and making calls to remind people to vote. Matt Pinnell ran that successful program, and he's now chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party.

Beyond turnout efforts, the state party provides training for potential candidates and their helpers and runs the state and district conventions that will elect Oklahoma's delegates to next year's Republican National Convention. You can vote in the Oklahoma Straw Poll and contribute your $5 (or more) knowing that the money will be used effectively.

Vote now!

An article by A. Barton Hinkle, on the website of Reason, the magazine of the libertarian Cato Institute, points to Oklahoma's pseudoephedrine restrictions and their impact on the methamphetamine trade, and not in a good way, in a column about proposed legislation in Virginia:

Second, it almost certainly will not impede the meth trade; it will only increase consumption of meth from Mexican narco-labs. This isn't mere speculation. It's exactly what happened in Oklahoma, which imposed restrictions on the sale of cold and allergy medication several years ago to combat meth trafficking there.

Result? "Six and a half pounds of Mexican meth, also known as 'Ice,' has been taken off the street by the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics," reported an Oklahoma City TV station last year. "It's the second meth bust in the last week." The story quoted the head of the state narcotics bureau, who said, "The No. 1 threat to the citizens in the state of Oklahoma is the Hispanic sell groups that have infiltrated rural Oklahoma." Oklahoma did not reduce consumption--it outsourced production. Some victory.

Third, the proposal targets the wrong thing. The problem is meth, not meth precursors. Cold and allergy remedies can be used to make meth, but so can soda bottles and coffee filters. Applying the fanatical logic of the nation's drug war, if restricting the sale of allergy medicines does not stop meth use--and it won't--the next step should be to track the sale of 2-liter soda bottles.

The column also compares the logic behind pseudoephedrine restrictions to the thinking behind gun regulation:

That warped reasoning goes like this: Millions of Americans use a lawful product in a lawful manner, but because a minute fraction use it unlawfully, everyone else will have to submit to government monitoring, inconvenience and constraint. Including you, dear citizen. Because while you have given no one any grounds to think you have broken the law, it is theoretically possible that you might do so at some point in the future. You are not to be trusted.

I supported the current pseudoephedrine restrictions when they were first approved, but it seems that the 2004 law only temporarily slowed meth usage for so long as it took addicts and their suppliers to find other sources.

Hinkle's argument does overlook some advantages of imported Mexican meth over local manufacture: Fewer houses blowing up or burning down, fewer kids exposed to the toxic fumes of their parents' meth labs.

Still, someone buying a decongestant for its intended purpose shouldn't have to worry about being eyed with suspicion, and they shouldn't have their medical needs unmet because the state's pseudoephedrine computer tracking system is offline -- or, worse yet, going to jail because they accidentally bought more than their allowed amount:

Consider what happened to Sally Harpold, an Indiana grandmother who was hauled off in handcuffs, booked and embarrassed on the front page of the local paper a couple of years ago. As Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum reported, her crime--if you want to call it that--was "buying a box of Zyrtec-D allergy medicine for her husband, then buying a box of Mucinex-D decongestant for her daughter at another pharmacy less than a week later. That second transaction put Harpold six-tenths of a gram over Indiana's three-gram-per-week limit" for pseudoephedrine.

A RESPONSE (2011/10/15): A reader familiar with Oklahoma's drug situation writes to say that the song and dance you go through to buy Sudafed is worth it, and that Oklahoma's law has been a phenomenal success, eliminating the "horrible boobytrapped biohazard dens" that anyone might encounter -- motel rooms, renthouses, cars. The current pseudoephedrine law has brought that problem to an end, along with the corruption and violence of the meth production industry. No one would wish meth labs on Mexico, but better there than here, and in Mexico meth production is not done in small labs, but in remote, large-scale factories. Pseudoephedrine has been illegal in Mexico since 2008 and has to be smuggled in, adding a layer of expense, complexity, and vulnerability to their operations that law enforcement both inside and outside of Mexico can exploit.

AND A NEW TWIST: Last week the arrest of a man carrying a backpack meth lab in the 81st and Lewis Walmart in Tulsa led to the discovery of a meth lab in a storm sewer nearby:

Roy Teeters who oversees the storm drainage system for the City of Tulsa Public Works Department says there are more than 1,000 miles of storm drains in Tulsa.

Sizes range from a basketball to a dump truck.

The tunnels are large enough to attract a meth cook who used one of those tunnels as his kitchen.

Police say a hundred yards back through the tunnel that drains into Fred Creek they found they found an active meth lab, a discarded bottle used to make meth and meth-making materials....

However, it just wasn't the meth cooks down in the tunnels.

Officers say homeless people were living in the tunnels.

They found a couch, a chair, clothes and stolen property.

In 2011, Tulsa has already passed the number of meth lab busts we had in 2010.

Earlier this week, in my entry about the passing of Twyla Mason Gray, I mentioned the fascinating collection of interviews from 2007 that makes up the OSU Women of the Oklahoma Legislature oral history project.

Cleta Deatherage Mitchell represented Norman in the State House of Representatives as a Democrat from 1976 to 1984, during which time she rose to the chairmanship of the appropriations and budget committee. Nowadays she's a Washington, D. C., attorney, a member of the National Rifle Association board, chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation, and president of the National Republican Lawyers Association. She began working on national issues with her advocacy and legal defense of term limits. Her law practice focuses on election law and lobbying and ethics laws.

As you can see in the following quotes, Mitchell believes that politics should not be run by a professional class, but by ordinary citizens, taking time out to serve their fellow citizens.

In the interview, Mitchell also explains why smaller districts are a good thing, a timely reminder as some of our legislators are toying with the idea of fewer legislators and as Tulsa voters face a ballot initiative that would add three members elected at-large (citywide) to our City Council. (Emphasis added.)

I recommend everybody run for office. I really think everybody ought to serve. I really think it is a bad thing that we've come to this professionalization of politics because that isn't what this country was founded on. This idea--to have a really representative government, you have to have a system that allows people to take turns and go and spend a tour of duty in a legislative body or a city council or a planning commission or a school board. Those are the people who, in my view, really deserve the credit because those are generally volunteer positions. I decided I didn't want any part of people trying to get me to run for the Norman City Council. I said, "Do I want people calling me in the middle of the night because there's a dead dog in their street? No, I don't think so."

Frankly my remedy for the cost of congressional campaigns is that one of the things we ought to do is to triple the size of the U.S. House of Representatives. It's not written in the Constitution that we have 435. They used to increase them. Cut the district sizes by two-thirds so people can get to know and do those grass roots door-to-door campaigns. I mean, that was such an important part of my learning process to become a legislator was the campaign. I would bring home zinnia seeds and watermelons and people would give me money--twenty bucks and, I mean--"Come back and get some of this squash from my garden," and I talked to people. My, campaign staff, my volunteers would say, "You are the slowest canvasser." Well, that's true because I really talked to people, and I really learned from them and listened to them. It's not easy for candidates to do that, running for Congress or the U.S. Senate now because it's all television. It's fundraising and television and they don't re-draw the state boundaries every ten years so Senators actually do have to maintain the boundaries. But for House members I really think that we've lost something in the retail politics that I think we could get back if we changed the system some.

I think everybody ought to do it, and I think people who think they're not qualified--women always say they're not qualified. That's the first thing they always say. They're not qualified. And I say, "Well, if you don't think you're qualified, then you just need to do what I did. Go sit in the gallery. Go listen. Turn on C-SPAN. You know, watch the local access channel. Watch your city council, and if you think you're not qualified, you are just not paying attention."...

Women always think, "Well, I need to go get another degree or I need to get another course." And I always say, "One more piece of paper is not what you need. You just need to know that you know what you know and you bring what you know to the table. And in a representative government, that's what we're supposed to have....

Listen more than you talk. Take care of the home folks. And work, work, work.

As you'll read in the transcript of the interview, Mitchell was instrumental in the Open Meetings Act, the restoration of the State Capitol building, an end to unrecorded votes in the legislature (the "Committee of the Whole"), the computerization of voter records, the redirection of state sales tax receipts from being earmarked for Lloyd Rader's welfare empire to the general fund under the legislature's control, and "displaced homemaker" training programs at the state's VoTech schools.

MORE:

Cleta Mitchell in the Daily Caller: Setting the record straight on voter ID laws

Back in February, RedState's Erick Erickson defended Mitchell for her devotion to the conservative cause, contrasted with her detractors' in GOProud and their support for left-wing groups and causes.

Yesterday, Tulsa Congressman John Sullivan's bill to provide regulatory relief to the American cement industry, HR 2681, passed by a vote of 262-161. According to an email from Sullivan, the bill "puts the brakes on a costly, overbearing EPA rule that threatens to shut 20% of the U.S. cement manufacturing industry. This rule, refered to as the 'Cement MACT' rule could end up costing us nearly 20,000 private sector jobs and would drive up the cost of cement and construction projects around the country."

To underscore the significance of the bill, the free-market grassroots group FreedomWorks made it a "key vote," a vote included in its rating of each congressman's commitment to economic liberty. FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe explains the impact of the Cement MACT rule and why Sullivan's bill matters:

The EPA itself admits that current cement regulations would raise the price of the most common type of cement. The agency predicts that cement prices would go up by 5.4 percent. The rules require that the producers of Portland cement invest in expensive new equipment to comply with the new standards. The compliance cost of these new cement regulations over the next four years will total $5.4 billion. Increased compliance costs will ultimately be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. We will all be paying higher prices for cement as a result of these needless regulations.

The cement industry estimates that the rule could destroy as many as 4,000 jobs. It could cut domestic cement manufacturing capacities by 20 percent over the next two years. Portland Cement Association President Aris Papadopoulos says that, "shortages and price volatility will become more common" once these regulations are implemented. In addition to destroying jobs in the cement industry, the regulation is expected to cost 12,000 to 19,000 jobs construction jobs due to higher construction costs. We must prohibit the cement MACT rule to save jobs and prevent the increase of cement prices.

Americans for Prosperity issued a letter of support for Sullivan's bill, noting many of the same points (with links to backup material for the numbers cited):

For weeks the President has lectured us that the government needs to help "put people to work rebuilding America" - destroying jobs and hiking up construction costs through poorly-contrived regulation is no way to start. Your bill provides relief from these rules: giving EPA fifteen months to re-propose and finalize more prudent standards, extending compliance deadlines to give cement plants adequate time to adapt once the rules do take effect, and ensuring that EPA chooses the "least burdensome" and most economical regulatory alternative.

Here's Sullivan's speech on the floor of the House during debate on the bill.

Twyla Mason Gray, an Oklahoma County District Judge and former Oklahoma state representative died Monday. She was 56.

In 1980, as a 25-year-old, Twyla Mason filed for and defeated an incumbent to win District 23 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. As a House freshman, she met and married Rep. Charles Gray from southwestern Oklahoma, the only time in state history that two sitting legislators married each other. After two terms in the House, Mason Gray left to raise a family and to attend law school.

In 2007, Twyla Mason Gray was interviewed as part of an oral history project documenting the experiences of Oklahoma's female legislators. In part of the interview, she discussed the birth of the University Center of Tulsa, exploiting a mistake made by the legislative leaders seeking to block the bill and the petty revenge that followed (emphasis added). "Triple-assigned" means that a bill would need the approval of three different committees before reaching the House floor:

One of the things that was the most important to those of us from Tulsa County was the University Center of Tulsa. Sometimes everybody plays a small role, but every role is important, and that's kind of what happened in that bill. Jim Williamson, who was a House member then from Tulsa...my husband taught us both how to roll call a bill, and I did the democrats and Jim did the republicans--and what happened on the bill was that with Cleta Deatherage representing OU [University of Oklahoma] and the Speaker of the House, Dan Draper representing OSU [Oklahoma State University], we couldn't get the bills out of committee. They made a mistake in the appropriation process and they did not move the higher education appropriation bill out of the Appropriations Committee by deadline. The next day I was reading the journal and saw that it had not come out. Bob Hopkins, was the older statesman of the Tulsa delegation, and I went running to Bob on the floor and said, "This bill is still in the committee." Well, I had called to check to see if the bill wasn't out of committee. I had called the chief clerk's house to see if it was a mistake and, of course, they went to the chief clerk, who was Richard Huddleston, and said a mistake had been made. He told Draper, and Deatherage got up to ask for unanimous consent that the bill be moved, and Bob Hopkins objected and then the fight was on because we had taken this roll call to keep the bill in committee until we got the University Center of Tulsa.

We were able to keep that bill from coming out for four days which was a big deal when you're opposed by the Speaker of the House and the Appropriations chair. They can make a lot of promises and people begin to fall off, but eventually we got it--but it was hand-to-hand combat every day. In fact, one of the things that happened because it was close to the end of session was in the leadership meeting there was a big battle because my husband, who was on the leadership, had helped us roll call the bills and had taught us what to do and had coached us about how to talk to different people. There were folks who were really mad at him and they got into a big fight. The leadership didn't meet the rest of the year. Their weekly luncheons were cancelled. It was an exciting time....

In 1982, when I was re-elected, my husband retired and Dan Draper was still Speaker of the House and I got punished for the University Center of Tulsa and so Dan took my office, and there was a variety of things that went on. All of my bills got triple assigned. I had been able to accomplish the split in the leadership, I had Vernon Dunn and Charley Gray helping me against the Speaker, and it was a big deal and so there was a change in the Speaker of the House. Jim Barker was elected, and then everything changed and kind of went back to normal. That first session I had very little to do because I couldn't get anything done, and so I sort of did what I called guerrilla warfare. I didn't have anything to do other than to read their bills and to ask irritating questions, and so that's pretty much what I did. Then when Jim Barker was elected Speaker things leveled out and I worked on legislation and could get my bills out of committee and...

(Draper represented Stillwater, home of Oklahoma State University in the house. College towns strongly opposed Tulsa having a local state college.)

Gray was first elected judge in 1998.

The Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs (OCPA), a free-market think-tank focused on state policy, will hold its annual gala here in Tulsa, on October 6, 2011, at the Renaissance Hotel. Keynote speaker for the event is Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Single-seat tickets for the gala begin at $125 (of which $75 is tax-deductible). Proceeds go to support the work of OCPA.

In May, Daniels signed into law a school voucher program with the largest eligibility pool of any such program in the country. In addition to vouchers for students in public school seeking to enroll in private school, the new Indiana law provides for up to $1,000 state tax deduction for private school and homeschooling expenses for those families that had already opted out of the public school system.

Beginning next Monday, August 15, 2011, and continuing through Thursday, August 18, 2011, U. S. Sen. Tom Coburn will be conducting 9 town halls across the state, in Guymon, Woodward, Enid, Tulsa, Claremore, Langley, Pryor, Muskogee, and Oklahoma City.

All the details are in a news release on Sen. Coburn's website.

The Tulsa town hall will be on Tuesday, August 16, 2011, 6 p.m., at the PACE at Tulsa Community College - Southeast Campus, 10300 E. 81st St. (81st Street South and Highway 169), Tulsa, OK 74133.

The Claremore town hall will be on Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 10:00 a.m., Rogers State University Centennial Center Ballroom, 1701 West Will Rogers Blvd, Claremore, OK 74017.

My son and I attended Sen. Coburn's town hall in Bixby a while back, and he spent most of the Town Hall on questions from citizens, not much time on his own opening remarks, and engaged the audience directly. You may not always get an answer you like, but you will get a direct answer from Sen. Coburn.

Oklahoma State Rep. Rusty Farley died Monday, July 4, 2011, of a pulmonary aneurysm. He was 57.

Farley was responsible for one of the most surprising upsets in the 2010 Oklahoma elections, in McCurtain County, the southeastern corner of Oklahoma, deep in Little Dixie, traditionally home the state's staunchest Democrats.

No one remembers House District 1 ever electing a Republican, but in 2010, Rusty Farley of Haworth ran on a shoestring budget and beat incumbent freshman Democrat Dennis Bailey, who had beaten Farley in 2008. According to the Oklahoman:

Although Republicans made tremendous gains last year in statewide and legislative elections, Farley was given little chance of winning. He spent only $70 of about $170 he raised, state Ethics Commission records show.

The money was used for an advertisement in a local newspaper.

"I didn't really campaign a whole lot," he said in November. "I can honestly say I don't owe anybody any favors for getting elected."

Farley served on the Haworth School Board for 18 years. He unsuccessfully ran against Bailey in 2008.

Farley won with 50.8 percent of the votes in the 2010 election, receiving 134 votes more than Bailey of the 8,102 cast. About 81 percent of registered voters in the district in November were Democrats.

The Oklahoma Republican Party is plagued with consultants who fancy themselves latter-day Boss Tweeds, intimidating Republican candidates into hiring them, convincing candidates that they can't win without raising (through the consultants' connections) and spending (with the consultant taking a cut of every dollar spent) $100,000 to persuade 10,000 voters.

Rusty Farley was a reminder that you can win without the money if you have a record of community service with integrity. Spending $70 on a newspaper ad, he beat an incumbent who spent about $23,000 and enjoyed the advantage of the same party affiliation as 81% of the electorate. (That $23,000 doesn't include another $8,000 spent in 2009 from Bailey's 2008 campaign funds.)

There are some lovely tributes from friends and neighbors on Rusty Farley's Facebook wall.

MORE: Whirled makes an oopsie (emphasis added):

Farley, who ran unopposed in 2010, raised only $170 for his election campaign and spent $70 of that, according to archives.

From the Oklahoma State Election Board website:

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT NO. 1                    31 OF   31
          RUSTY FARLEY                  REP     4,118   50.83%
          DENNIS R. BAILEY              DEM     3,984   49.17%

State Sen. Judy Eason-McIntyre (D-Tulsa) has come under attack twice in recent days by prominent Tulsans who evidently oppose educational choice and individual liberty, according to two recent stories by CapitolBeatOK.

Last Thursday, lobbyist Margaret Erling harangued the Tulsa senator on the floor of the Senate over Eason-McIntyre's support for the conference report of a bill that will change the cutoff date for school enrollment from September 1 to July 1. (Margaret Erling is the wife of former KRMG morning show host John Erling Frette.) Under HB 1465, "a child would have to be four by July 1 to enter Pre-K programs, and/or five years old by July 1 to enter kindergarten," according to the CapitolBeatOK story.

In the Monday interview, Eason-McIntyre said that at the time of the incident, she had decided to support two Republican bills in the conference, and had approached "my leader," state Sen. Andrew Rice of Oklahoma City to give him a heads up on her decisions. The upper chamber had just recessed for the day. Sen.Rice was working at his desk, according to Eason-McIntyre.

She briefly explained to Rice her support for the two measures in the conference process (signing a conference report does not bind a member to support a measure on final passage), including H.B. 1465. She said Sen. Rice told her "not to worry about it."

He had, she recounted, asked members of the minority caucus to remain unified through the redistricting process to assure protection of Democratic interests. She explained that with that issue now headed toward resolution, Rice told her he understood her positions on the two measures.

Just as the two had finished speaking, Erling approached. As Erling confronted her, Eason-McIntyre was so perplexed by Erling's attitude that she was, she confessed, briefly confused over which of the two bills had so angered her.

"She was irate, and ranting. I thought she was going to have a stroke," Eason-McIntyre told CapitolBeatOK. Erling, who has several major clients at the Capitol, including Tulsa Public Schools, claimed to Eason-McIntyre that another client, George Kaiser of Tulsa, opposes H.B. 1465.

(The story also reports that the chief of staff of State Superintendent Janet Barresi has also been lobbying against the legislation.)

Then, on Sunday, Kara Gae Neal, the superintendent of Tulsa Technology Center (formerly known as Tulsa Vo-Tech), sent a scathing email to Eason-McIntyre for signing a conference committee report for HB 1652, which would allow concealed-carry permit holders to keep their guns locked in their vehicles in parking lots on vo-tech campuses and a few other types of public venue. According to Neal's email, Eason-McIntyre had the leverage to kill the bill in committee.

(Kara Gae Neal is the wife of retired Tulsa World editorial page editor Ken Neal.)

"I cannot believe that under the cloak of no public vote, you signed out of committee the only gun bill left alive this year, HB 1652, which will bring guns to Career Tech campuses across the state.

"I cannot believe that you have said Democrats have no power this year but YOU, single handedly, could have stopped that bill in its tracks. Two others on that committee held firm, one a Democrat and one a Republican and true friend to education, Dr. [James] Halligan. It took 4 votes to secretly slip it through the committee without a recorded public vote and YOURS was the 4th vote...after giving a verbal commitment in advance to Brady McCullough from Tulsa Tech that we could count on your support to kill the bill in committee.

"I cannot believe that YOU, who represents the District with the greatest number of CHILDREN shot in this state every year, did this to them and to us. Our Tulsa Tech facility in your district not only has high school students but a CHILD CARE center on that site.

"I cannot believe that when asked why you did this you said you liked the bill's author, Sen. Russell, and that he had done a lot for you. And what would that be? Surely getting 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot' as the state spiritual/blues song was not it. Maybe they will play that in your memory at the funeral of children shot in your district.

Eason-McIntyre replied:

"For the record you can tell anyone you want that I signed the conference committee report at the request of my friend Sen. Russell. For your information there was no deal made!

"I have never hidden behind any excuse for what I decide to do. I do strongly believe that if Republicans believe in guns then openly vote for their gun related bills.

"You mentioned the problem with guns in OUR community, not just my district but I have yet to hear of any effort you have provided to solve Tulsa's gun problem, particularly in my district.

"The catty remark about the State's gospel song being sung at a funeral in my district, I will ignore and assume it had no any racial overtones intended.

"As it relates to our 'friendship' I am sorry always to lose a friend, but you made that choice."

"Judy"

School choice activist Brandon Dutcher, linking to these two stories, writes:

State Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre (D-Tulsa) is a liberal pro-abortion Democrat with whom I have virtually nothing in common. But I've always admired the way she has stood up for giving underprivileged students more school options -- even when doing so has been difficult for her politically. So I must say I felt sorry for her recently when she had abuse heaped upon her in the most inappropriate of ways. ...

The good senator will live to fight another day. Here's hoping she comes back next year and helps push another school-choice bill across the finish line.

Technical note: Copying and pasting tweets into this post was a very frustrating and time-consuming process. In the end, I had to paste the HTML into an Emacs buffer, use a series of regex replacements to clean the text up enough so everything would post without messing up everything else on the page. I simply wanted to reproduce the text and links without the avatars and all the Twitter-specific style info. If there's a simpler way to do this, please let me know.

My long-awaited wrap-up of the 2011 Oklahoma Republican Convention, held on May 7 at the Meridian Conference Center in Oklahoma City, is long overdue, so in its stead, here are my tweets (and the things I retweeted from other attendees) through the course of the day. We had a brief "tweetup" of the handful of Twitterers after the convention was adjourned. Next time around there may be a much bigger back-channel conversation happening during the convention.

In general, I came away from the convention feeling encouraged, particularly by the reports from statewide elected officials like State Auditor Gary Jones, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi, State Labor Commissioner Mark Costello, and Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony.

I was disappointed by the defeat of a return to the caucus system for pledging delegates to presidential candidates. When it appeared that no one was going to rise to speak in support of the idea, I stepped up, pointing out that Oklahoma Republicans haven't had a meaningful say in the selection of the party's presidential nominee since 1980, when we elected national convention delegates based on their pledge to vote for a particular nominee. In every presidential primary, Oklahomans have been left with a choice of the front-runner and a stop-the-front-runner candidate. The front-runner takes the statewide delegates and most of the congressional district delegates, usually with a very small plurality of the vote; the stop-the-front-runner takes one or two congressional districts at best. Given that the last time the caucus system was used was 31 years ago, I imagine only a few people remember that the system worked well and encouraged large turnouts at every level of the process. Some silly things were said in opposition: One delegate objected to caucuses because Barack Obama used them to "steal" the nomination from Hillary Clinton by busing people to the caucuses.

A point concerning the platform: Two amendments were brought to the convention in accordance with the convention rules, which required a certain number of signatures in order for the matter to come before the convention. 

Another amendment, striking a plank calling for the 9/11 investigation to be reopened, was moved by a delegate from the floor. The chairman, former Broken Arrow State Rep. John Wright, did an excellent job running the meeting, but I think he erred when ruling that the amendment was in order as it didn't constitute a substantial change. Wright's definition of "substantial" depended on the complexity of the proposed amendment, so striking a plank would be insubstantial. Although I was happy for the opportunity to get rid of that plank, I believe Wright's interpretation of "substantial" was incorrect. Anything that changes the substance, or meaning, of the platform should be considered substantial. Fixing a typo or grammatical error would qualify as insubstantial.

After the jump, my tweets and retweets from the 2011 Oklahoma GOP convention.

The Oklahoma Senate redistricting plan, drawn up by political consultant Karl Ahlgren, will move five incumbent state senators -- two Democrats and three Republicans, including the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- out of their own districts, according to a BatesLine analysis of the new boundaries.

A BatesLine geocommons map shows the new Oklahoma State Senate boundaries, the 1992-2000 boundaries, the current boundaries, and the locations of current state senators.

By state law (51 O.S. 8), the seats will become vacant as soon as the redistricting plan takes effect.

Generally, a redistricting plan is designed to accomplish one of the following purposes:

(1) Protect incumbents of all parties. This produces a map with odd-looking districts, but exactly one incumbent in each district.

(2) Help the majority party and hurt the minority party. This produces a map with odd-looking districts, but with more than one incumbent in some districts. Often two incumbents of the minority party will be placed in the same district, making it likely that the minority's numbers will dwindle by one. Another approach is to take a small area of a minority incumbent's district and join it to an adjacent district controlled by the majority party, forcing the minority incumbent to compete for reelection at a great disadvantage.

(3) Reflect communities of interest, without regard to party advantage or incumbent protection. This only happens in states that use a combination of a non-partisan commission and some automated method of drawing boundaries.

This plan appears to be something altogether different, as it targets three majority-party incumbents. Is this some effort to punish dissenters? Or is personal animus or vengeance on the part of the mapmaker involved?

The five victims:

SD 3: Jim Wilson (D-Tahlequah). SD 9 (incumbent Earl Garrison, D-Muskogee) has been redrawn to extend a narrow strip along US 62 to encompass Tahlequah, separating the Cherokee County seat from the rest of the county. Wilson is term-limited after the 2012 legislative session.

SD 20: David Myers (R-Ponca City). Myers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, would be thrown into SD 36 (Eddie Fields, R-Wynona), while SD 20 would be moved to the south, to cover Noble, Pawnee, and Logan Counties and most of Kingfisher County, except for Kingfisher itself. Myers was elected to his third and final term last fall without opposition. He would hit his term limit after the 2014 session, assuming he doesn't lose his seat via this redistricting plan.

SD 22: Rob Johnson (R-Kingfisher). A former state representative for four years, Johnson has been thrown into SD 26 (incumbent Tom Ivester, D-Sayre). SD 22 currently encompasses southern Kingfisher and northern Canadian Counties, with small adjacent segments from Logan and Oklahoma Counties. SD 22 would shift south, to cover western Canadian and northern Grady Counties. The new SD 26 has a narrow strip reaching into Kingfisher County to grab the city of Kingfisher where Johnson lives. Johnson was elected to the State Senate in 2010. He would be eligible to run for reelection in 2014.

SD 33: Tom Adelson (D-Tulsa). The Democrat nominee for Tulsa mayor in 2009 would be in a redrawn SD 39 (Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, incumbent) which would reach west to incorporate Utica Square and surrounding neighborhoods, while SD 33, currently covering midtown and west Tulsa, would be relocated to snake its way through south and east Tulsa County, from 211th St. South & 33rd West Ave., south of Bixby, through Leonard and Broken Arrow, to 41st and Memorial. Adelson is eligible to run for one more term in 2012. The new boundaries for SD 35 and 39 make a detour to include Utica Square; that sort of maneuver has been used in the past to accommodate a legislator who wishes to move to a posher neighborhood outside his current boundaries.

SD 43: Jim Reynolds (R-Oklahoma City). SD 43 is currently in Oklahoma County, mainly east of I-35 and south of I-40. The district would be moved to McClain and parts of Stephens, Grady, and Garvin Counties, while Reynolds would be thrown into SD 45 with Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma City). Reynolds is term-limited after the 2012 election.

Under this plan and the state law that requires a member to live in his district, David Myers would lose his Senate seat as soon as the plan takes effect. Presumably, the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee would be in line to take the chairmanship. The vice chairman is Clark Jolley who is, coincidentally, the Republican co-chairman of the Senate redistricting committee.

The proposed boundaries for the new Oklahoma State House districts have been online since Friday, but the maps lacked any street detail that could be used as a point of reference. In response to my request, the Speaker's Office sent me the GIS data and a data table assigning each census block to its new House district. While the legislation (HB 2145) is on the House redistricting webpage (all 1,627 pages of it!), they haven't posted the computer-friendly files there, so here they are, in a 3.18MB zip archive.

Oklahoma House Redistricting 2010 GIS shapefile

Paul Monies of The Oklahoman has created an interactive map featuring the proposed State Senate districts. I've taken his work and added (from U. S. Census Bureau data) shapefiles showing the Oklahoma Senate districts created after the 1990 and 2000 censuses. You can turn each layer on or off to see how the districts have evolved over time.

I had really hoped that, having won overwhelming control of the legislature despite the Democrats' gerrymander in 2001, Republican legislative leaders wouldn't feel the need to perpetuate the errors of the past or create monstrosities of their own. It appears that I was mistaken.

A follow-up to the previous entry about State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R-Oklahoma City):

A CapitolBeatOK piece from April 20, 2011, by Pat McGuigan, argues that Mike Reynolds and several Republican colleagues (Mike Ritze, Randy Terrill, Mike Christian, John Bennett) should be more like Sally Kern, who regularly votes in favor of emergency clauses, a separate vote on an approved bill that allows it to go into effect immediately rather than 90 days after the end of the legislative session. During the current session Reynolds, Ritze, Terrill, Christian, and Bennett have frequently voted against emergency clauses.

Here is the usual text of an emergency clause:

It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

The 90-day waiting period (and the emergency exception) is established in Article V, Section 58, of the Oklahoma Constitution:

No act shall take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, except enactments for carrying into effect provisions relating to the initiative and referendum, or a general appropriation bill, unless, in case of emergency, to be expressed in the act, the Legislature, by a vote of two-thirds of all members elected to each House, so directs. An emergency measure shall include only such measures as are immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and shall not include the granting of franchises or license to a corporation or individual, to extend longer than one year, nor provision for the purchase or sale of real estate, nor the renting or encumbrance of real property for a longer term than one year. Emergency measures may be vetoed by the Governor, but such measures so vetoed may be passed by a three-fourths vote of each House, to be duly entered on the journal.

I can see how a constitutional conservative might have qualms about proclaiming an emergency when no threat to the public peace, health, or safety really exists, in order to bypass a provision of the constitution. I've found a couple of articles by free-market state policy think-tanks complaining about abuse of the emergency clause in the state of Washington, pointing out that the emergency clause doesn't allow time for a referendum to prevent a new law from going into effect.

Perhaps our legislative leaders could restrict the use of the emergency clause to true emergencies and even then spell out exactly how failure to put a law into immediate effect jeopardizes the public peace, health, or safety.

The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce has put State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R-OKC) on its "most wanted" list for his opposition to tax credits that seem to be more about rewarding the politically connected than helping Oklahoma's economy grow. The Chamber's website highlights two Reynolds quotes:

That's what [the Quality Jobs Program] does is it's wealth redistribution, and we can talk all day long about how it creates jobs. It doesn't create jobs. It rearranges jobs. It has to do that by artificially incentivizing certain companies with your taxpayer dollars. Where else would they get the money? It didn't grow on trees. It didn't come in a federal grant. We didn't find a gold mine and say "all the gold in this mine is going to quality jobs". Somebody found a gold mine when they passed the Quality Jobs Act, and that's for sure.

--Rep. Mike Reynolds debating against SB 154, Updating Quality Jobs Act

"It's not for small business, it's for... very selected, well connected, highly lobbied, huge campaign contribution, big business. We can see very clearly a pattern to where these tax credits exist. ...it's legalized socialism."

--Mike Reynolds debating against HB 1008

To try to marginalize Reynolds, the Chamber placed his quotes next to Democrat legislators calling for more regulations and outright state acquisition of industry for relocation. Reynolds advocates neither position.

On HB 1008, Reynolds joined 22 other Republicans in opposition to removing "the aerospace incentives from the list of credits on moratorium as of July 1 this year." The moratorium was already set to expire on July 1, 2012, one year later.

SB 154 is still working its way through the system. It seems to make the Quality Jobs Act retroactive in some way to include jobs that otherwise would not have qualified, but the language is obscure.

Reynolds is right to be concerned about tax credit abuse in Oklahoma and about the misuse of the state's power to tax to pick economic winners and losers. Well-intentioned programs designed to give businesses an incentive to move to Oklahoma or expand may do genuine good in many cases, but they can also be gamed by the unethical.

Reynolds is not anti-business or anti-growth. He believes that the best way to encourage business and growth is to reduce the burden of government on everyone, not just specially-targeted industries. That's a respectable position, even if you disagree with it. It certainly doesn't warrant his inclusion on the State Chamber's target list.

CORRECTION: An addendum to this piece incorrectly identified the previous positions held by Chamber CEO Fred Morgan, who was a State Rep. and House Minority Leader. My apologies for the error.

Legislative redistricting is still in progress, and congressional redistricting isn't due until next year, but the Oklahoma House already has a plan for altering the congressional lines to rebalance population to fit the 2010 census -- HB 1527. Only a handful of precincts will change hands. This is the least radical redistricting in my lifetime, and it's much less contentious than 10 years ago, when Oklahoma lost a seat, and congressional redistricting became a game of musical chairs. (Wes Watkins, already stepping down, lost that game.)

To avoid a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act, the lines are drawn so that each congressional district has exactly the same population, plus or minus 1 person. The same thing was done in 2000. That level of precision seems ridiculous, given that between the date of the census snapshot (April 1, 2010) and the drawing of the lines a year later, the actual numbers have already changed. Allowing slightly more deviation would allow congressional districts to follow county boundaries, instead of having to be tweaked one block at a time, and some states are allowed to do that, but Oklahoma is not allowed.

As it is, only four counties will be split, and those same four counties were split in 2000: Creek (mostly 3 and a bit of 1), Rogers (mostly 2 and a bit of 1), Oklahoma (mostly 5 and a bit of 4), and Canadian (mostly 3 and a bit of 4). (The links lead to detailed maps in PDF format.)

The changes shouldn't have any effect on partisan balance, which might be considered a missed opportunity. Republicans could have easily drawn the lines to hurt Dan Boren's reelection chances.

As it is, Tulsa will continue to have two congressmen. And two of Oklahoma's congressmen will each represent two military bases -- thus District 4's incursion into Oklahoma County to lasso Tinker AFB -- and that's supposed to help with any future base realignments.

MORE: I had a question via email about my statement that Tulsa will continue to have two congressmen. The City of Tulsa is mainly in Tulsa County (385,613 people, 176.37 sq. mi.), but it extends into Osage (6,136 people, 10.80 sq. mi.), Wagoner (157 people, 13.68 sq. mi.), and Rogers (0 people, 0.13 sq. mi.) Counties as well. (The Rogers County portion is only a narrow fenceline, extending to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa.) Frank Lucas represents all of Osage County, including the 1.5% of Tulsa's population that lives there. The Osage County section of Tulsa includes Gilcrease Hills, Tulsa Country Club, and Country Club Gardens. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the Osage County part of Tulsa was included in the 1st District. It might have been nice had the Legislature moved Tulsa's chunk of Osage County from CD 3 into CD 1 in exchange for the Creek County section of CD 1.

One more thing: The Legislature's early resolution of congressional district boundaries and the minimal changes they made are both huge helps to county election boards. After the 2000 census, the battle between Gov. Keating, a Republican, and the Democrat-controlled legislature over redistricting led to court, delaying official adoption of a plan until June 26, 2002, a mere 12 days before the filing period. County election boards had only two months to redraw precinct boundaries and then sort the state's voters into the new precincts. (By state law, a precinct can't be split by congressional, legislative, or county commission district boundaries.)

This time around, county election boards will have a full year. Maybe the Tulsa County Election Board can use some of that time to match precinct boundaries to city limits and school district boundaries. (I'm thinking in particular of the chunks of west Tulsa in precincts 801 and 802, and a couple of east Tulsa precincts that straddle the Tulsa-BA limit.) Cleanly drawn boundaries prevent confusion at the polling place.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has declined to issue the executive order necessary to reauthorize the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council, according to a story in the Oklahoman.

Fallin had 90 days after she took office in January to decide whether to extend the life of the councils, which were formed by executive orders issued by two earlier governors; Democrat Brad Henry formed the ethnic-American council and Republican Frank Keating formed councils dealing with Hispanic and Asian-American affairs.

Fallin deserves credit for taking the right step, given the predictable backlash from CAIR and their allies. The misleadingly named group, supported with state funds, was not about all ethnic groups or even all Middle Eastern cultures. Middle Eastern Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Baha'i were not given a seat at the table.

GEEAC would have been more accurately called the Governor's Islamic PR Council. In May 2007, the chairman of GEEAC sought an on-air opportunity to respond to the public TV series America at a Crossroads:

The Governor's Ethnic-American Advisory Council requested a chance to set the record straight after previewing the series before it ran on the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority from April 15 through 20.

"We thought there were a couple of segments that did not put Islam in a positive light," said Marjaneh Seirafi-Pour, the council's chairman.

Later in 2007, GEEAC (an agency of the State of Oklahoma, remember) offered a special centennial edition of the Koran to legislators; legislators who politely refused were publicly excoriated. An story on the Koran controversy by Brian Ervin included quotes from GEEAC chairman that confirmed the group's purpose -- advocating for Islam in Oklahoma.

"The name wasn't of my choosing, but we were happy with it. You'd have to ask the Governor why we're called that," she said.

She offered her best guess, though.

"The thing is, Islam is not limited to the Middle East--there are Muslims of West African descent and other nationalities from around the world," said Seirafi-Pour.

"If it had been called the 'Middle Eastern American Advisory Council,' it would have limited membership to Muslims of Middle Eastern descent," she added.

Seirafi-Pour was as clear on the purpose of GEEAC as Governor Henry was deliberately obtuse.

Thanks to Gov. Fallin for disbanding this inappropriate and deceptive use of taxpayer dollars and government imprimatur. Thanks to blogs like zTruth and columnists like Diana West for helping to shine a light and keep the pressure on. Thanks to legislators like State Rep. Mike Reynolds and former State Rep. Rex Duncan helping to shine the light on GEEAC's activities. And thanks to all the BatesLine readers who took action, turning reports on these pages into a positive result at the State Capitol.

CORRECTION: I originally began this entry referring to a Steve Lackmeyer tweet about a Tulsa news story making his head hurt. Because the link he tweeted led to a "Latest News" page on the Tulsa Whirled's mobile website -- at least it did on the browser on my smart phone -- and the Tulsa County GOP convention was the top story at that time, I thought Steve was referring to that story. In fact, he was referring to a Whirled editorial about Tulsa mayor Dewey Bartlett's veto of a Council resolution rescinding the election for a charter amendment. My apologies for the misunderstanding, and here's the rest of the blog entry.

"This" was a web story by Whirled reporter Randy Krehbiel about Saturday's GOP convention. I'd love to give you my own report, but work prevented me from attending. Steven Roemerman was there, and I'm looking forward to a report on his blog at some point, but for now, all he had to say was that the 10-hour-long event gave him a headache.

John Tidwell, communications director for John Sullivan, tweeted the election results in real-time. To summarize (links lead to a tweet about the candidate or race):

Chairman: J. B. Alexander (stepping up from vice-chairman), by acclamation

Vice Chairman: Molly McKay (2010 nominee for HD 78, patent attorney), by acclamation
1st Congressional

District Committeeman: Don Wyatt over incumbent committeeman and former county chairman Jerry Buchanan, 180-145
1st Congressional

District Committeewoman: Donna Mills over Virginia Chrisco, 233-93

State Committeeman: Don Little over former State Committeeman Chris Medlock and Jeff Applekamp. First round was Medlock 113, Little 108, Applekamp 79; final result was Little 126, Medlock 121.

State Committeewoman: Sally Bell (stepping down as chairman) over Darla Williams, 221-79.

Many of the victorious candidates had the endorsement of Sally Bell. Bell's new job responsibilities wouldn't allow her to devote the time necessary to serving as chairman; state committeewoman involves quarterly meetings of the Republican State Committee in Oklahoma City and occasional meetings of the county party Central Committee and Executive Committee. (For what it's worth, I served as State Committeeman from 2003-2007.)

Krehbiel characterized the convention as a "move further to the right" and a defeat for the "moderate old guard." I don't think that's the case. The "moderate old guard" is pro-life (the pro-abortion Republicans left the local party 20 years ago), pro-2nd amendment rights, and (mostly) pro-limited government, and pro-lower taxes.

The real dispute is the role of the party organization with respect to elected Republican officials. The prevailing faction at the county convention believes that the party should hold Republican elected officials accountable for governing in accordance with the core conservative principles that they espoused when running for office.

The other side -- the "moderate old guard" -- takes the "stand by your man" approach. They don't disagree with the party's conservative core values, but in their view the party organization's job is to advocate for (or at least not to oppose) whatever policies a Republican elected official decides to pursue and should never publicly oppose something a Republican elected official or major Republican donor supports. For example, if the Republican members of the County Commission want to raise local taxes for a downtown arena or river development, the Republican Party shouldn't denounce them for promoting a tax increase, in their view, particularly if major donors support the tax increase too.

The dispute boils down to this: Principle vs. partisanship. Should the party organization back anyone with an R after his name, or should "protect the brand" by insisting that the R actually mean something?

Krehbiel's report mentions a resolution, to be presented at the state convention as an amendment to the state party rules, that would provide a means to censure Republican elected officials who deviate from the party's core principles. Here's the actual wording of the proposed state party rules amendment presented by newly elected Tulsa County GOP chairman J. B. Alexander:

Rule 10

(n) Party Support of Candidates and Elected Officials

In accordance with the framers original intent of the United States Constitution and in accordance with the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, the core values of the Oklahoma Republican Party shall consist of:

* Life - Life is the result of an act between one man and one woman and begins at conception and concludes at natural death.

* Second Amendment - The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of the individual citizen and government has no authority to regulate such right.

* Limited/Smaller Government - Government is instituted to oversee the general welfare of the citizens. Local, state and federal governments have reached well beyond that which is needed to carry out the basic functions of a constitutional government.

* Lower Taxes - Taxes and mandatory fees have grown to consume approximately fifty percent of an Oklahoma citizen's income. Drastic tax and fee reductions are needed at all levels of government.

Any member of the Oklahoma Republican Party State Committee shall have the right to present evidence of any elected Republican official who consistently works against and/or votes against these core values or publicly supports a candidate of another party.

After such evidence is presented, and a motion and second are made, the state committee shall take a vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" of said elected Republican official. A two-thirds majority vote of members present shall be required for a passing vote.

I might quibble with the selection of issues, the wording, or the proposed penalties (really should be more specific and concrete, I think), but I commend Alexander for focusing on a few key issues, rather than demanding allegiance by officials to every point of the party platform, as past resolutions have done.

Count me on the side of accountability. I've always believed it was an appropriate role for the party organization to play, but especially now that Republicans have supermajorities in the Oklahoma House and Senate and every statewide office, we've got to make sure our elected officials aren't led astray by lobbyists looking for special favors. Some organization needs to apply the pressure to ensure that GOP campaign rhetoric turns into reality.

Oklahoma City is in the middle of its "non-partisan" elections, and someone is spending big money to influence the outcome:

Two groups directly or indirectly supported incumbents Salyer, ward 6, and Ryan, ward 8, and supported challenger Greenwell against incumbent Walters in ward 5. Sam Bowman not running for re-election in ward 2, Charlie Swinton received those 2 groups' favor in that ward.

The two groups were/are the Chesapeake Oklahoma PAC, which made direct contributions to the foregoing candidates' campaigns, and the Committee For Oklahoma City Momentum, a §527 group, which made no direct contributions to candidates but instead ran its own parallel campaigns to support its favored candidates.

Oklahoma City historian Doug Loudenback says that, although his preferences largely coincided with those implicitly backed by Momentum, he's concerned about the lack of transparency:

Instead, this article has to do with public knowledge of (1) who are those who form organizations to influence our votes, (2) how much they contribute, (3) how they decide who to favor, and (4) dirty-trick tactics used during campaigns that leave no footprints in their wake, i.e., public accountability.

Right now, we don't know (1) who the contributors to "Momentum" are, (2) how much they contributed, or (3) who made decisions about how the money got spent. There is every reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, that the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum is largely funded by some or several of the big moneyed interests in our city.

It's obvious enough that there's some project that someone wants pushed through. Perhaps they want to steer funding to a favored developer or general contractor. Control over the Core-to-Shore redevelopment area might be involved. Voters just gave city government a big pot of money to play with, so it would be worth investing money in a campaign to get control of it.

Perhaps they want to clear away urban design and historic preservation obstacles, the sort that slowed down the undevelopment of Sandridge Commons -- tearing down historic structures, like the India Temple building, which once housed the State Legislature, for a 1960s-style open plaza, the sort that has never worked as a public place. Historic preservation has played a key, but underappreciated, role in Oklahoma City's resurgence, while too many people believe that the city's momentum comes from magically transferring money from citizens to contractors and basketball team owners.

The style of the flyers is highly reminiscent of the work of consultants Fount Holland and Karl Ahlgren. The team also handled the Dewey Bartlett Jr for Mayor campaign. They are quite fond of the Impact font seen in the anti-Brian Walters flyer.

What's fascinating is that the Momentum group is using national politics in supposedly non-partisan city council races. We saw this in Tulsa, as Bartlett Jr's main campaign theme was that Democratic nominee Tom Adelson had given money to the Democratic Party and raised money for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. (Never mind that Bartlett Jr had lent his name to the reelection of Democrat Kathy Taylor, before her decision not to run for re-election.)

But in Oklahoma City, as Doug Loudenback points out, the Momentum group is using whichever ideological appeal will work in a given district, with no attempt to maintain consistency. In one district they attack an incumbent for being insufficiently conservative, linking him with Pres. Obama. In another district, they attack a challenger for being too conservative, and they approvingly link their preferred candidate with a liberal, openly homosexual state legislator.

Apparently, Momentum's bottom line solely relates to anticipated results. In ward 5, Momentum waved the ultra-conservative flag and said that Walters wasn't conservative enough, but in ward 6 it waved the moderate flag and knocked ultra-conservatives, a good part of ward 6 being progressive and moderate in its political makeup. Momentum's unprincipled approach is to do whatever it takes to win.

Loudenback notes a push-polling campaign against an opponent of a Momentum candidate for a race yet to be settled in an upcoming runoff.

I think we are likely to see this approach spread, sadly. The only remedy is for voters to bother to inform themselves and for grassroots candidates to work harder to get their message directly to the voters, one voter at a time. At the same time, we need stronger disclosure rules, rules that don't allow a flood of untraceable money to flow into a campaign in the last two weeks, after the pre-election filing deadline. Contributions and expenditures should be electronically reported all the way up until election day.

MORE: The Oklahoma Gazette has more about Momentum and the other groups trying to influence the Oklahoma City council elections.

RELATED, in an odd sort of way: I finally figured out why photos of Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett are a bit unnerving. It's that uncanny resemblance to wife-stomping western swing bandleader (and Oklahoma native) Spade Cooley.

I was not the least bit surprised at last Friday's announcement that Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin would not use her power to direct the Attorney General to investigate charges against Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. Gov. Fallin is the play-it-safe type. (One indication of that during the general election campaign: The campaign's teleconference with conservative bloggers featured Q&A with two press aides, but not the candidate herself.)

In her response to Tulsa City Councilor John Eagleton, Fallin scolded Tulsa leaders about the need to settle their disputes for the sake of economic development, even as she declined to do what is in her power to help them accomplish just that. If this dispute is " an obstacle to attracting new jobs to... the State of Oklahoma," then shouldn't a governor who promised to focus on jobs do what she can to eliminate this obstacle? Eagleton wrote Fallin precisely to ask her to move the problems with Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr toward resolution.

I don't know if Eagleton had this in mind when he wrote his letter to Gov. Fallin outlining Bartlett Jr's actions that warrant an Attorney General investigation, but I know Eagleton is a lifelong Presbyterian, and the idea of appealing disputes to a higher level of authority is deeply rooted in Presbyterianism, which in turn influenced the design of the American judicial system. In the Presbyterian form of government, if there's a dispute between the elders (the lay leadership of the congregation) and the pastor, it can be taken to the next level up -- the presbytery, a body made up of ministers and elders from churches throughout the area.

Taking the Mayor's alleged misdeeds to the Governor and the Attorney General is loosely analogous to appealing to presbytery. Theoretically it puts the dispute in the hands of officials who are somewhat removed from it. (Practically speaking, Bartlett Jr is much better known in statewide Republican circles than Eagleton, and Bartlett Jr was a $5,000 donor to Fallin's 2010 campaign for Governor.)

In her response, Gov. Fallin wrote, "Many, if not all, of your allegations involve violations of the Tulsa City Charter and Ordinances. I have been advised that Title 51 may only address potential state law violations." In fact, 51 O. S. 93 includes in its definition of official misconduct, "Any willful failure or neglect to diligently and faithfully perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by the laws of this state." It could be argued that, as all Oklahoma cities are creatures of the state, with powers defined and circumscribed by the Constitution and statutes of Oklahoma, an officer's failure to perform the duties required by a city's charter and ordinances constitutes a failure to perform the duties enjoined by the state's laws.

MORE: Mike Easterling of Urban Tulsa Weekly spoke to John Eagleton, several of his council colleagues, and GOP state chairman Matt Pinnell about Eagleton's motivations in pursuing the ouster of Bartlett Jr.

Eagleton, a Tulsa native and Oral Roberts University law school graduate, said there shouldn't be any doubt about why he's pursuing this course of action.

"The motivation is derived exclusively from the oath I took when I was sworn in to be a city councilor," he said. "If I had not taken that oath, I would not be doing this now. But I promised to defend the city charter, the city ordinances, the Constitution of Oklahoma, the statutes of Oklahoma, the Constitution of the U.S., the statutes of the U.S. against all comers. That includes elected officials who are not behaving in accordance with their oath of office. It breaks my heart to be on this evolution."...

"As I evolved in thought to reach the conclusions I've reached, it was really quite painful to realize that I was going to be going out on this and realize that there would be a collateral attack," he said. "Mistreating the messenger is always easier than defending the actions of the mayor. And I knew that I would be piñata-ed someway."...

[Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Matt] Pinnell was careful to indicate he doesn't blame Eagleton for stirring up trouble.

"He's doing what he thinks is right, whether people agree with him or not," Pinnell said. "I respect him for that."...

"I think he's a good man. I don't have an issue with Councilor Eagleton," said District 4 Democrat Maria Barnes, who got to know Eagleton when they were both elected to the council in 2006. She described Eagleton as a very serious person and said she likes the fact that she always knows where she stands with him -- even if it's on the opposite side of an issue, as has often been the case.

[District 2 Republican Councilor Rick] Westcott shares that assessment.

"There's no guile in John Eagleton," he said. "He is what he is. Like him or not, there's no gray area in John Eagleton's personality, and I mean that as a compliment. He is what you see."...

When he first got to know Eagleton, [District 9 Republican Councilor G.T.] Bynum said, he developed the impression that he was bombastic, very certain of his views and fond of using a flamboyant approach to conveying them.

"What's changed over time is I've developed an appreciation for the kind of thought that goes into those beliefs," Bynum said, though he noted that many people who don't know Eagleton well probably view him inaccurately as a shoot-from-the-hip type.

"I'm a great admirer of Winston Churchill, and I can't help but think that serving on a legislative body with Winston Churchill was a lot like serving with John Eagleton," he said....

I've known John Eagleton for close to 10 years, and my impressions of John line up with those of his colleagues. There is no hidden agenda with John Eagleton. He is pursuing ouster -- a complicated process with a low probability of success -- because he feels it is his duty as a city official.

Congressman John Sullivan was the lone House member from Oklahoma to vote against H.J.Res. 48, the latest short-term continuing resolution, designed to continue funding the government in the absence of an actual budget. Sullivan issued this statement:

Enough is enough, the American people didn't elect us to continue kicking the can down the road with week to week spending bills that pacify Senate Democrats and the White House - they elected us to end the spending spree in Washington. We cannot continue forcing our government to operate on week to week measures, when the problems we face require serious long-term solutions. No one wants to see a government shutdown, but President Obama has been completely absent from the debate, and his lack of leadership in finding common ground ultimately shows his actions don't match his rhetoric, and regaining fiscal sanity is not on the top of his priority list.

The Federal Government is now nearly halfway through the fiscal year without a budget. A budget should have been in place before the fiscal year began on October 1, 2010; at the time both houses of Congress had large Democrat majorities.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Capitol, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has proposed an additional $20 billion in cuts in S. 493, in the form of seven amendments to the small business appropriations bill. Coburn's cuts include duplications identified in the GAO report and subsidies for ethanol (an "alternative energy source" that consumes more energy than it produces and drives up world food prices by diverting corn from guts to gas tanks):

Coburn has posted on the web a 31-page, heavily footnoted, and detailed description (PDF) of the cuts Coburn proposes and the rationale behind each. A few selections from the section on ethanol subsidies:

Consumers pay $1.78 per gallon of subsidized ethanol-blended fuel. Meanwhile, U.S. biofuels consumption remains a small share of national transportation fuel use--7.5 percent in 2012 and 7.6 percent in 2030

Ethanol burns at two-thirds the efficiency of gasoline (68 percent of the energy content of gasoline), ultimately increasing fuel consumption nationally as drivers and boaters are forced to burn more fuel to travel the same distances.

Increases of corn used for fuel production puts pressure on corn prices, demand for cropland, and the price of animal feed. Those effects, in turn, have raised the price of many farm commodities (such as soybeans, meat, poultry, and dairy products) and, consequently, the retail price of food--USDA estimates 40 percent of last year's corn crop will be used for ethanol production....

According to CBO: The increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.

In turn, that increase will boost federal spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program) and other child nutrition programs by an estimated $600 million to $900 million in FY 2009." These domestic nutrition programs comprise over 60 percent of the farm bill....

Emira Woods, Chairperson of Africa Action said, "In the midst of a global food crisis and rising hunger, the ethanol industry expropriates land in Africa and elsewhere to grow food that fuels cars. We applaud Senators Coburn and Cardin for introducing legislation to end this shameless subsidy."...

[According to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences] "Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs from the U.S. Corn Belt are key contributors to 'dead zones' in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. A 2008 study by independent researchers, published in the academy's Proceedings journal, calculated that increasing corn production to meet the 2007 renewable fuels target would add to nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico by 10 to 34 percent."

The redistricting committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives has set up a redistricting webpage with some interesting summary data that they will use to redraw the lines for their chamber of the State Legislature.

They provide a very helpful link to the U. S. Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Office, where you can download population data (down to the block), maps, and shapefiles for GIS.

The Oklahoma House redistricting page also has spreadsheets summarizing population changes between 2000 and 2010 for each county, State House district, State Senate district, and congressional district, and maps illustrating State House district population change and deviation from the ideal population (state population / 101).

Five of the 10 districts which are farthest below the ideal are in midtown and north Tulsa: 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78. (Three of the districts have been held throughout the decade by Democrats.) They need to be expanded in area to grow by 4,000 to 6,000 population. Three districts in the top 10 that need to lose people are on the suburban fringe of Tulsa County: 74 (Owasso), 98 (Broken Arrow), and 75 (southeast Tulsa, north Broken Arrow). The area of brown on the Tulsa County map (shrinking districts) corresponds roughly to the Tulsa Public Schools district boundaries.

There are a couple of possible solutions to balance the population of Tulsa area districts. One would be to expand the central districts out further, cutting into areas currently in suburban districts that need to lose some population. The other possibility would be to eliminate one of the central districts -- perhaps 70, since incumbent Ron Peters is term-limited, or the oddly-shaped 78 -- split it up among the other central districts, and then recreate the district somewhere in the suburbs. This is how HD 98 was reborn in 2001 -- transplanted from the western suburbs of Oklahoma City.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin's press office emailed me with the first in a planned series of monthly columns along with her official press portrait, a high-resolution 2400x3000 JPEG image. Her first column is on saving tax dollars by consolidating administrative and IT among state agencies and moving to electronic billing.

The portrait is lovely, and I'd like to share it with my readers, but as my template only allows about 500 pixels in width, I can't share it with you all at once. Taking a page from the Johnny Cash songbook, I'll post it one piece at a time, over the next month or so, left to right and top to bottom in 500x500 pixel chunks. Here's part one:

Here's the Governor's inaugural column:

Headline: "Time to Modernize our Government"

By Governor Mary Fallin

Over the course of this prolonged national recession, Oklahomans and Americans everywhere have been called on to make sacrifices. They've balanced their budgets by tightening their belts, and they have found creative, sometimes difficult, ways to live within their means.

Government is not immune to the recession, nor should it be exempt from the kind of sacrifices that Oklahoma's families and businesses have been making for several years.

Going into Fiscal Year 2012, our state government is facing a $500 million shortfall. Balancing the budget will require difficult decisions and budget cuts.

Originally, those budget cuts were estimated to be as high as 8-10 percent for every agency. While not impossible to absorb, those kind of deep reductions would certainly have a real impact on agencies dealing with public safety, health, and education. I am proud to say that, through the use of innovative cost-saving measures, my executive budget has reduced those cuts from 8-10 percent to a much more manageable 3-5 percent. That's an enormous difference, and it's one that allows us to trim government waste and tighten our belts without jeopardizing the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets or the health of our citizens; if, that is, these reforms are adopted by the Legislature.

Many of our proposed reforms are just common sense, like moving the state from paper to electronic billing. Everyone knows that it is wasteful to have one government agency print, write, and mail a check to another government agency rather than transfer that money with a few clicks of the mouse.

Other changes involve consolidating administrative and information technology services, so that multiple agencies can share the same support personnel. The Legislature has already taken strides to implement these consolidations, which have the potential of producing over $100 million in savings annually, and they should be applauded for it.

The budget includes a host of other proposed consolidations and changes, all of which are designed to allow government to perform its vital functions while operating in a more cost-effective manner.

As you might expect, not all of these changes are easy to make or popular among the directors of government boards and agencies. Change can be difficult, and we can expect any challenge to the status quo to be met with resistance.

That resistance will always be headed by individuals who, however well-intentioned, do not want to see a change to business-as-usual and oppose our attempts to make government smaller, smarter and more efficient.

That is their right. But it is our right as citizens to demand that our government make smart, sometimes difficult choices, rather than once again kicking the can down the road and burdening taxpayers with unnecessary expenses.

If the Legislature passes the modernization reforms proposed in my budget, the state of Oklahoma stands to save roughly $286 million annually. That money allows us to close the budget gap without big cuts in vital government services. It brings our government out of a 20th century model and into the digital era and it allows our public employees to better serve our customers, the people of Oklahoma.

In the following weeks, it's my great hope that the Legislature will pass these reforms, get them to my desk, and work with me to deliver the kind of state government the people of Oklahoma deserve.

Most Tulsa County Republican precinct organizations will hold precinct elections tomorrow, Saturday, March 5, 2011, at 10 a.m. (There are a few exceptions.) Any registered Republican voter is eligible to attend and vote in his precinct's election, at which precinct officials for the next two years and delegates to this year's county GOP convention are elected. The precinct meetings will also consider resolutions for inclusion in the county platform. While platform planks are often about national and state issues, it's certainly appropriate to address city and county issues in the platform as well (even if it gives Republican elected officials fits).

Click this link for the list of 2011 Tulsa County Republican precinct elections.

If you don't know your precinct number, visit the Oklahoma State Election Board precinct finder.

Urban Tulsa Weekly gave its cover story spot this week to Oklahoma Observer publisher Arnold Hamilton. It's called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Republican Galaxy," but it's all about how poor lefties like radical pro-abortion, anti-religion activist Barbara Santee and homeschool hater Jim Wilson will survive Republican domination of the Sooner State.

Hamilton notes the transformation that has taken place over our state's first 103 years:

Less than a century ago, Oklahoma was known as a hotbed of the populist-progressive movement, embracing politics so radical, so anti-corporate, so anti-establishment, so pro-little guy that it's almost incomprehensible when compared to 2011.

What Oklahomans have figured out, although it took a while, was that progressivism doesn't work. A progressive constitution of the sort Oklahoma was born with is the governmental equivalent of designing a plane without due respect for the laws of gravity and aerodynamics. It's the political version of the old hobo anthem, "The Big Rock Candy Mountain." Oklahoma's progressivism has held us back, as our neighbor to the south as zoomed ahead as one of the most prosperous and fastest growing states in the union

Hamilton seems to forget that the progressivism for which he waxes nostalgic was thoroughly racist. The same solons who framed our "progressive" constitution took up Jim Crow laws as their first legislative priority.

Hamilton says that Oklahoma is now "reliably red, corporatist Republican," but I think he's mistaken to use the adjective corporatist. Oklahoma Republicans are mainly populists, at least at the grass roots level. Corporatists will always flock to and seek to influence the dominant party, whichever it may be, and the newly elected Republicans will have to resist pie-in-the-sky promises of economic development for special tax credits and subsidies held out by their fair-weather friends in the corporate welfare world.

The coping strategies suggested by the lefties that Hamilton interviewed include ignoring local news, watching liberal TV fantasies ("The West Wing") like some lovelorn spinster reading Harlequin paperbacks, drinking heavily, and leaving the state.

State Sen. Jim Wilson says he may retire to Vermont, after drowning his sorrows in tequila (worm included). That's a fine idea, and I hope many of his left-wing compatriots follow his suggestion. If you'd rather not live in a state committed to the free-market principles and traditional mores that made America great, there are plenty of other options out there.

As Tommy Duncan sang, "If you don't like your bunk, pack up your junk."

The Service Employees International Union has sent an email calling members and sympathizers to rally at the Oklahoma State Capitol at noon today (Saturday, February 26, 2011).

Here's the email from SEIU president Mary Kay Henry. Note that the signup links are directed to moveon.org:

SEIU brothers and sisters, Join us at a solidarity rally in your state capitol this Saturday

Over 13,000 people signed up to attend a solidarity action this weekend. We've partnered with dozens of great organizations and it promises to be a day you won't soon forget. Sign-up to join today.

It's been almost two weeks since SEIU members in Wisconsin joined with other public employees, students and allies to fight back against Governor Walker's attempt to take away their rights.

And we're winning.

You've seen the scenes from Madison by now, tens of thousands in the streets and thousands more inside the capitol inspiring a nation that has had enough of attempts to slash public services and hurt workers for the profit of billionaire campaign contributors.

But this weekend we've joined with allies across the country to organize solidarity rallies in major cities - including every state capital - this Saturday at noon.

We'll speak out to demand an end to the attacks on workers' rights and public services across the country. We'll demand investment to create decent jobs. And we'll demand that the rich and powerful pay their fair share.

In short, we'll turn Oklahoma into Wisconsin.

Will you join us Saturday at noon? Sign up to join your local rally here:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?rc=rsad_seiu&action_id=238&search_distance=40

Did you see the big news this week?

The Wisconsin Legislature shut down its comment line after receiving too many calls against the attempt to take away workers' rights.

But when a blogger pretended to be Kansas oil magnate David Koch, Republican Governor Scott Walker took his call and stayed on the line for 20 minutes!

The two talked about how to use tricks to defeat Democratic State Senators, Walker's plans to tell thousands of workers they will lose their jobs, and even talked about the billionaire's "vested interest" in the outcome of this fight.

You may not have a billion dollars like David Koch, but it's time our legislators hear our voice.

Use the tool below to find an event taking place this Saturday at noon and RSVP to join the fight.

http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?rc=rsad_seiu&action_id=238&search_distance=40

The outpouring of support for our members has been overwhelming.

Over 20,000 people sent in messages supporting them and our website has seen record traffic over the past week.

Workers in Wisconsin are very well aware the nation stands with them and they look forward to hearing the news about our successful events across the country on Saturday.

In solidarity,

Mary Kay Henry
President, SEIU

The leftist meme is that the Koch brothers are pushing budget cuts for their own personal profit. It's hard to see how the Kochs could be harmed or helped by Wisconsin or Oklahoma tax policy. But it's easy to see how a currency trader (moveon.org sponsor and billionaire George Soros is a currency trader) could profit if America's currency collapses under the weight of massive amounts of debt and higher taxes. Someone with a history of betting against currencies and profiting from the economic collapse of other nations' currencies might have a strong motivation to incite pressure against getting America's fiscal house in order.

Voters in Oklahoma and in Wisconsin overwhelmingly elected conservative Republicans to office who promised to rein in spending, maintaining services without raising taxes. These newly elected officials are keeping their promises.

For decades, politicians, particularly Democrats, have bought the support of public employee unions by promising benefits somewhere off in the future (pensions with minimal employee contributions, retirement health coverage), while avoiding the tough fiscal choices to fully fund those promises. These politicians could make these future commitments without raising taxes, without cutting services in other areas, without ensuring that the state would have the means to fulfill IOUs that would conveniently come due long after they left office.

The day of reckoning is here. Massive public debt is devaluing our currency, driving energy prices through the roof, pushing food prices up as well. The higher prices and, if the public sector unions have their way, higher taxes fall on the family, friends, and neighbors of the same SEIU members who will gather on the capitol steps later today.

I hope that the vast majority of Oklahomans who want and need more efficient government services at a lower cost will show up at the Capitol today as well and make their voices heard.

Congratulations to Holly Richardson, aka Holly on the Hill, a conservative Utah political blogger, mom of 20, and political activist who was named by a special Republican convention to fill an unexpected vacancy in the Utah House of Representatives.

The vacancy occurred because the recently re-elected incumbent representative discovered, while using an online "find your legislator" address-lookup tool, that his state rep was someone other than himself.

State Rep. Craig Frank represented the district since 2003. In 2009 he planned to move from Pleasant Grove to Cedar Hills. County maps then showed that the new location was within the 57th. So he moved.

Early this month, however, he was fiddling with the House's new website, which has a useful feature. You can type in your address, and it tells you what district you live in. Frank did so, and up popped ... a picture of Rep. John Dougall. Uh-oh. Dougall represents House District 27.

Inquiries indicated that old county maps didn't jibe with the official state map of district boundaries. Frank apparently lived outside his district. To his credit, he immediately reported this. His seat was declared vacant.

The source of the problem: The district boundaries were defined in terms of city limits, which changed about the time the redistricting law was passed.

The law's text says the legislative boundary is the Cedar Hills city limit; but the accompanying map draws the boundary along outdated borders from before the time Frank's property was annexed, thus putting his property outside Cedar Hills.

So does "city limit" refer to the actual city boundary, or to the line labeled "city limit" on the map? One could argue either way. The first option puts Frank in District 57; the second seemingly puts him in the 27th.

Oklahoma redistricting is not likely to run afoul of the same problem, as redistricting legislation makes reference to census block numbers, which are defined prior to the decennial census by the U. S. Census Bureau and do not change.

But even Oklahoma's method opens the door to inconsistencies, gaps, and omissions, particularly as the legislative form of the redistricting bills doesn't lend itself to visualization.

That's why it's important, during the redistricting process, for legislators not only to publish the draft redistricting bills and their long lists of census block numbers, but also to publish the in-progress work product, in the form of a table with a record for each census block showing its current district and assigned district under the proposed plan. Members of the public with GIS and database skills will be able to link this information with Census Bureau population numbers and census block geography and detect problems so that they can be corrected before boundaries are set in stone.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives will hold a session of its "Redistricting Listening Tour" in the Career Services Center auditorium of Tulsa Technology Center's Lemley Campus, 3420 S. Memorial, Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011, at 7 p.m.

I hope to attend. Redistricting is a favorite topic -- it combines maps, math, and politics -- and it deals with fairness in representative government. My first published guest opinion was a May 31, 1991, Tulsa Tribune "Point of View" piece on redistricting: "Those Districts Belong to Us."

Although the population has shifted and the lines have been redrawn once in the subsequent score of years, the problem I described and the principles that should guide redistricting still hold true. I hope the first Oklahoma redistricting with my fellow Republicans fully in control will be the epitome of fairness and common sense. If Republicans could win a supermajority of seats in both houses despite the 2001 district lines drawn by Democrats to preserve their own power, the GOP can certainly hold the legislature with fairly drawn districts that reflect communities of interest rather than incumbent self-interest.

While I may not be able to persuade my friends in the legislature to draw fair lines, I hope at least that I can persuade the House and Senate to use common lines, as much as possible, to avoid some of the absurdities that emerged from the 2001 redistricting.

Meet Precinct 184.

This uninhabited precinct, home of Marshall Brewing Company (which didn't exist when the lines were drawn), is bounded by 6th and 7th Streets, Utica and Wheeling Avenues. In 2000, the Census Bureau defined it as tract 23, blocks 1064 (west of the tracks) and 1047 (east of the tracks).

It exists as a separate precinct because it is the only area that is in both Senate District 11 and House District 72. North of 6th St. is in SD 11 and HD 73. East of Wheeling and south of 7th is SD 33 and HD 72. West of Utica is SD 11 and HD 66.

State law (26 O.S. 3-116 A) requires that "The boundary line of any precinct shall not cross the boundary line of any district court judicial district electoral division or any congressional, legislative or county commissioner district." Had this block been included in the same precinct as one of its neighbors, this law would have been violated. Without this law, you might have voters in a single precinct voting in two different House or Senate districts, sending two different ballot versions into the same ballot scanner.

The lack of collaboration between House and Senate on boundaries forced the Tulsa County Election Board to create this unnecessary precinct and at least four others, two of which are uninhabited.

Precinct 187 (Tulsa County 2000 census tract 46, block 1994) is a triangle bounded by the eastbound and westbound lanes of I-244 between the west bank and the centerline of the Arkansas River. Formerly a part of precinct 801, it is the only sliver of land (sand, more truthfully) in both HD 66 and SD 37.

Precinct 185 is Tulsa County 2000 census tract 76.10, block 1015, bounded by Riverside Drive, the east bank of the Arkansas River, Joe Creek, and a bike path (roughly the continuation of Trenton Ave.) It is the only census block in both SD 37 and HD 69.

Precincts 179 and 180, near 76th St between Yale and Sheridan, have a few voters each. They exist because the House chose the east-west center line of the section as a boundary between HD 67 and HD 79, while the Senate chose a series of streets that cut across the square mile -- 76th St, Erie Ave, and 77th St -- to divide SD 25 from SD 39.

There very nearly were more microprecincts. House and Senate mapmakers differed over whether the westbound or the eastbound lanes of the Broken Arrow expressway between Harvard and Pittsburg should form a district boundary. But it appears that this narrow strip of land, tract 39, block 4001, in HD 71 and SD 33, was attached to precinct 71, just to the west.

Mercifully, Oklahoma law allows the creation of "subprecincts" in such cases. A subprecinct can share precinct judges and a polling place with a neighboring precinct, but it still must have its own ballot box. Depending on which races are contested, it may require its own ballot to cover its unique combination of districts.

How did this happen? Each chamber of the legislature worked separately on its own plan, without reference to the Other Body, defining districts in terms of U. S. Census Bureau census blocks, rather than in terms of boundary lines. Wherever there's a street, a stream, a railroad, or a political boundary, there are separate census blocks on either side. The Census Bureau provides a database with population counts by census blocks, and each house divvies up counties, census tracts, and census blocks in order to produce contiguous districts of roughly equal population.

Rather than repeat the same folly, I urge our legislature to use common boundaries to define House, Senate, and Congressional districts. Since the federal courts tossed aside our constitutional provisions on legislative apportionment back in 1964, the number of legislators in each house has been defined by statute.

So let's add two senators to make 50, subtract one rep to make 100. Define 100 State House districts. Combine them in pairs to make 50 Senate districts. Combine 10 Senate districts into each of our five Congressional districts. Or start with Congressional districts and divide them into 10 Senate districts each, and each Senate district into two House districts.

Either way, it would make it easier for constituents to know who their legislators are, would make it harder to use district boundaries to protect incumbents, and would make it easier for county election boards to draw precinct boundaries.

MORE:

2000 Census maps of Tulsa County, showing census tracts and blocks

Tulsa County Election Board maps of precincts and districts.

Title 14, Congressional and Legislative Districts. For some reason, you can find the detailed definition of 2001 Senate districts here, but not House districts, so here is the rich-text format (Word-compatible) version of HB 1515, the 2001 Oklahoma House redistricting bill as signed by the governor.

Oklahoma 2nd District Congressman Dan Boren proved me wrong.

Rather than vote a fourth time for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House (he voted for her in 2005, 2007, and 2009), the Democrat joined 10 colleagues in voting for North Carolina Democrat Heath Shuler for speaker.

Another eight Democrats also voted for someone other than Pelosi: Two of her fellow California Democrats, Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza, voted for each other, John Lewis (D-GA) received two votes. Minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Jim Cooper (D-TN) each received one vote. One Democrat (Bishop of GA) voted present, and one (DeFazio of OR) wasn't even there.

All but one Republican voted for the new speaker, John Boehner. The lone holdout: John Boehner. (Often, speaker candidates abstain from the vote, although Pelosi never has.)

1997 appears to be the last time there were a significant number of dissenters -- 9 center-left Republicans opted not to vote for a second term for Newt Gingrich.

It will be interesting to see if Boren pays any price within his caucus. While the vote for speaker is normally what the British would call a three-line whip -- dissent risks expulsion from the party caucus -- Pelosi had no chance to win. Allowing Boren to vote against Pelosi takes a way a talking point from his 2012 opponent, improving Boren's odds of re-election, so that he can vote for a far-left speaker in 2013, when his vote may matter.

When my daughter and I went door-to-door in Muskogee for Charles Thompson, Boren's 2010 opponent, Boren's previous votes for Pelosi were a real door-opener; it gave us an instant rapport with voters. Had Thompson raised enough money early enough to get that message to most 2nd District voters, Boren's political career might be over.

(Thanks to Steven Roemerman for his tweet today wondering if "this @Batesline post had anything to do with [Boren's] vote today.")

Here are some links, briefly introduced, to blog entries of interest around Oklahoma. A few may be a month or two old, which is a reflection on how far behind I am.

First, some blogs that are not necessarily new, but they're new to me and are worth a visit:

Joy Franklin is a Stephens County-based photographer, and her blog Expedition Oklahoma is filled with beautiful photographs of our great state. A few recent entries: the Glancy Motel on Route 66 in Clinton, an old abandoned family farm, Monument Hill, on the Chisholm Trail near Addington.

If you're on Facebook, you should go and "like" Expedition Oklahoma. As of yesterday, I was the fifth "like-er" and Joy's work deserves far more recognition than that. You can also follow @ExpeditionOK on Twitter. Although I'm only a rank amateur photographer, I can identify with a couple of her tweets from earlier today:

I think I enjoy photography because it takes away the need to have a friend to go places with you. #sadbuttrue

I can be a loner without looking like a loser. #photography #cameraismyfriend

Random Dafydd grew up in Tulsa is based in Bartlesville. In addition to his main blog he has blogs devoted to Tulsa Architectural History, medieval art and medievalism, his work as a surgical technologist, and Celtic and British folk music. I liked his latest entry on "The Weekend Scrub":

The surgeon gave me the specimen, said it was ileum. A bit later the circulator asked me what we calling the specimen. I told her ileum, or Troy, her choice. She said "Oh".

Nobody gets my jokes.

An entry from May explains why our legislature should encourage the widespread deployment of defibrillators by providing unqualified immunity to owners of the devices, notwithstanding the self-serving objections of the trial lawyers:

If you have a heart attack in public, what is your chance of survival? It depends. If there is not a defibrillator near by, 6%. If there is one, 50%. Modern defribillators are marvels. It takes five minutes of training to learn how to use one. Actually, since they are designed to talk the uninitiated though the process it doesn't even take that....

Many states offer some form of immunity to owners of defibrillators. If a local convenience store owner buys one, and has to use it, and the patient dies, then the store owner can't be sued, even if the store owner used the device incorrectly. California offers qualified immunity. The store owner only has immunity if they jump through several hoops, including training employees in the use of the devices and monthly checks of the equipment for good working order, and developing a written plan for their use. Failure to jump through every hoop loses the store owner immunity and exposes them to liability. Of course, standing there and watching the customer die exposes the store owner to no liability at all. Given his legal environment, many business owners rationally choose to not buy defibrillators.

Now for some quick links:

Natasha Ball reviews a kid- and parent-friendly cafe recently opened in Owasso.

Tulsa Food Blog suggests you pick up a cup of coffee from a locally owned coffeehouse on your way to see the spectacular Christmas light display at the Rhema campus in Broken Arrow. In the comments, I pointed out that Stonewood Coffee and Tea Company is just a mile or so from Rhema, on the east side of 161st East Ave (Elm Pl), just north of the Broken Arrow Expressway.

Steven Roemerman says that the T in Bartlett stands for Totally Inept (twice), particularly when it comes to river development in Tulsa, referring to the December 3 open letter from Jerry Gordon, who developed the Jenks Riverwalk and apparently was working on a similar plan for city-owned land in Tulsa. You can see a sketch of Gordon's concept (named "Belt Street River District) at the bottom of his website's Projects page. (The sketch is via Nick Roberts, who was unimpressed.)

Man of the West has an extended quote from Bones of Contention about Rudolf Virchow, a renowned late 19th c. German anthropologist and the father of the science of pathology, and his diagnosis that the first Neanderthal skeleton was that of a victim of rickets.

Preserve Midtown believes that timely code enforcement with meaningful penalties would prevent wasteful demolition of neglected older homes. When an irresponsible owner allows a house to fall to pieces, the city winds up condemning and demolishing it at taxpayer expense and the basis for ad valorem tax drops to the value of the bare ground. If demolition is unavoidable, Preserve Midtown suggests giving an opportunity to salvage architectural elements and materials (e.g. hardwood flooring, bathroom fixtures) that would otherwise go to the landfill. I'm reminded of a suggestion Recycle Michael Patton made some years ago -- charge those seeking a demolition permit for the full cost of disposing of the debris.

Mike McCarville is keeping up with developments as Oklahoma's newly elected officials and new legislative leaders name their teams. A recent entry lists the members of the Senate Redistricting Committee named by Senate President Pro Tempore-designate Brian Bingman. Sen. Dan Newberry (R-Tulsa) will be the point man for northeast Oklahoma, freshman Sen. Kim David (R-Wagoner) will head up the congressional redistricting committee, and Sen. Judy Eason-McIntyre (D-Tulsa) will be one of the co-vice chairmen representing the Democrat minority.

Stan Geiger came across his mother's 1952 tax return and crunches some numbers that illustrate the huge rise in the Social Security tax rate. He says there his mom has more documents from that period that he may analyze; I hope he will. I can't think of anything better than original documents from the past to put the present in proper perspective.

Nick Roberts has posted his wishlist for central Oklahoma City development in the coming year. The blog entry packs some great urban analysis. It's sad to read how OKC is squandering the Core2Shore opportunity with superblocks (which never work) and poor placement of the convention center. He's also worried about development stalling in Bricktown and the city's failure to follow through on plans to promote downtown housing growth. (I don't appreciate his frequent call for OKCers with bad urban planning ideas to be sent to Tulsa. We don't need them here either!)

NewsRealBlog has a piece by David Yerushalmi titled "4 Rebuttals to Critics of Oklahoma's Anti-Sharia Law," a defense of the thinking behind the constitutional amendment adopted by an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma voters on November 2 as State Question 755.

Yerushalmi says that SQ 755 was poorly drafted (and explains why in detail), but the purposes of the amendment are legitimate, and he sets out to rebut four claims by critics: (1) that SQ 755 is a response to an irrational fear of something that poses no realistic threat to Oklahomans; (2) that the amendment was "driven only by a fear-mongering anti-Islamic narrative," a "cottage industry of Islamophobia"; (3) that outlawing sharia endangers other religious courts; (4) that "sharia" has no concrete meaning, making a ban meaningless.

Especially valuable is his explanation of the mechanisms by which sharia can become a real threat to American liberties under existing law:

Specifically, there are at least three ways for sharia to find its way into our courts and legal system in ways which would deprive Oklahomans of their federal and state constitutional liberties: comity, choice of law issues, and choice of forum/venue determinations. We will touch upon each of these in brief.

In dealing with comity, Yerushalmi explains why legislative action against sharia matters:

State courts are asked to recognize and enforce foreign judgments and private arbitral awards all of the time. This procedure for recognizing another juridical body's decision as binding is called granting comity to the foreign judgment. For our purposes, a private arbitral award is like a foreign judgment because it does not arise from a state court action.

Granting comity to a foreign judgment is mostly a matter of state law. And, almost all state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine is called the Void As Against Public Policy Rule and has a long and pedigreed history....

Unfortunately, because state legislatures have not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to sharia, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices to first know what sharia is, and second, to understand that granting a sharia judgment comity is ipso facto offensive to our way of life and the principles underlying our constitutional republic.

And, indeed empirically, we find published judicial opinions which accept comity for sharia-based foreign judgments and arbitral awards. And these published judicial opinions quite obviously only represent the tip of the iceberg since courts render these kinds of judgments all of the time through unpublished orders rather than published opinions.

While there are also published opinions where the courts have rejected the application for comity precisely on the grounds that sharia is offensive to Due Process and Equal Protection, the courts have ended up all over the map precisely because the state legislatures have not taken the time to carefully articulate their respective public policies on the recognition of sharia-based judgments. That the people of Oklahoma have chosen to do so, even if clumsily, is hardly grounds for criticism.

Yerushalmi has drafted a model uniform act called "American Laws for American Courts" and offers a free CLE course (an online, 40-minute, narrated PowerPoint) on the proposal and the problem it seeks to address.

The draft law appears to address the heart of the matter: We don't want the state's police power used to enforce judgments made under any system of law that does not include all the rights, privileges, and liberties guaranteed under our Federal and state constitutions. While waiting for the federal courts to address SQ 755, our Oklahoma legislators should consider passing the American Laws for American Courts act in some form as a substitute if SQ 755 is overturned or a clarification otherwise.

Congratulations to Oklahoma 2nd District Congressman Dan Boren for being named whip of the 54-member Blue Dog Coalition, the congressional caucus for Democrats who claim to hold mainstream values.

Nevertheless, when the new Congress takes its first vote, Boren will, for the fourth time -- which is to say, at every opportunity -- vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House and for her far-left cronies to control key House committees.

Thanks to the defeat of many of his colleagues, Boren's vote for Pelosi will be for naught.

My first reaction? Yuck.

Governor-elect Mary Fallin today announced the selection of the two co-chairs of her transition team, Devon Executive Chairman and former Oklahoma State Chamber Chairman Larry Nichols and Senator Glenn Coffee.

I was disappointed to see that both are from Oklahoma City, so talented Tulsans and other Oklahomans are likely to be overlooked for Fallin administration positions. More than that, I was disappointed not to see a Tom Coburn-style limited-government conservative as one of Fallin's picks.

Now, both are accomplished men, Coffee as a leader in the Oklahoma State Senate and Nichols in the oil and gas business, but the message I received from these appointments is that the Fallin administration is going to follow the wheeler-dealer Republican path, as I had feared.

Republican officials tend to divide into wheeler-dealers and square-dealers. Square-dealers are in earnest about reducing the size and scope of government, simplifying the tax code, and reducing red tape. What rules there are should be fair to all and equally applied. The market, not the government, should be picking winners and losers.

Wheeler-dealers pay only lip service to the professed Republican values of limited but effective government. For wheeler-dealers, big, complicated government is good, because it can be used to reward political supporters and to punish political adversaries. It's a modern version of the Jacksonian spoils system, but instead of rewarding their voters with government jobs, the victorious team rewards its campaign contributors with tax and regulatory changes to give them an advantage in the marketplace. In theory, the campaign dollars will continue to flow from these favored contributors and from those hoping for such favor, as they come to understand that you must pay to play.

Wheeler-Dealer Road leads to scandal, corruption, and ejection from office. That's the path that congressional Republicans went down in the mid 2000s (Enron, Jack Abramoff), and the path that former Oklahoma Speaker Lance Cargill and his consultant buddies started us down. The result: Congressional Republicans lost their credibility and their majority in 2006, and the free-market ideals that Republicans professed (but didn't practice) were discredited. But Oklahoma Republicans of the square-dealer variety rejected Cargill's leadership, corrected course, and continued to grow their majority, producing last Tuesday's breathtaking result.

Fortunately, the Oklahoma legislature has a number of stalwart square-dealers who will call their colleagues to account. One of them is State Rep. David Dank, who has a must-read op-ed in the Monday, November 8, 2010, Oklahoman. A few key points:

To deliver what we promised, we must take at least five clear actions.

First, our conduct must be above reproach. Oklahoma has experienced too many sordid scandals throughout its history. Voters are right to demand good character from their elected officials, and anyone who violates that trust should be shunned....

Finally, the new Republican super majority must be worthy custodians of the public's money. It's theirs, not ours, and we must be held accountable for how we spend it. Our model should be Oklahoma's outstanding Sen. Tom Coburn, and that should start with a careful examination of tax credits to assure that only those that actually create jobs are enacted or retained.

I was honored to receive a strong vote of support from my constituents in District 85 on Election Day. But I am also old enough to know that today's approval can become tomorrow's rejection for those who fail to keep their promises.

Republicans have a unique opportunity to remake our state -- but only if we honor that public trust we were handed last week.

MORE: Fallin names economic team: Bob Sullivan, David Rainbolt, Gary Sherrer.

There's an effort in Indiana to "rethink redistricting". Here are the principles they espouse for fair redistricting:

• Keep communities of interest together
• Create more compact and geographically uniform districts
• Reduce voters' confusion about who represents them by following already existing political boundaries such as county and township lines
• Not use any political data including incumbent addresses for partisan reasons
• "Nest" two house districts under the existing lines of a senate district

The five principles are similar to ideas I espoused in a Tulsa Tribune "Point of View" piece on redistricting I wrote way back in 1991, "Those Districts Belong to Us." (A Tribune editorial ten days later marks the only time in history that a local daily newspaper editorial has said I "had it right.")

With the new influx and the scarcity of Democrats in the legislature, it ought to be possible to draw sensible new legislative lines. In 2001, Democrats would take a chunk of suburbia and combine it with a vast rural area. The idea was to maximize the number of rural, presumably Democrat voters and to divide up the presumably Republican suburbs and minimize their ability to elect their own. That's no longer necessary. If you have 70 seats, there's no point in drawing crazy lines to get your yield up to 80 or 90. The new districts ought to be more compact and more uniform. No more 60-mile long, 5 mile-wide gerrymanders (or Marymanders, either).

Take a look at this map of State House districts after the 2001 lines were drawn. Notice how many mostly rural districts extend a finger into the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metro areas -- 22, 25, 27, 28, 41, 47, 51, 55, 56, 57; 13,16, 36.

How Republicans in the legislature handle redistricting will be an early indication of their commitment to doing the right thing for the people of Oklahoma. Taking a fair approach to redistricting means preserving the right of voters to fire their representatives. It's a matter of accountability and fairness to the voters; fairness to the minority party is merely a side effect.

What I am NOT advocating is to create intentionally competitive districts. Nor should they be tweaked to maximize GOP seats. Lines ought to be drawn with regard to communities of interest, without regard to the party registration of the inhabitants.

Marian Opala, associate justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, has died at the age of 89. He will be missed.

Opala was born in Poland, fought against Germany in the Polish Army and the Resistance, captured in the Warsaw Uprising, and imprisoned in Flossenburg Concentration Camp. After the camp was liberated, Opala met an Army captain from Oklahoma, who encouraged him to come to the US. He studied law at OCU and NYU, served as administrative director for the Oklahoma State Court system for 9 years, and as a worker's compensation judge for a year. Gov. David Boren appointed him to the State Supreme Court in 1978.

Opala's commitment to freedom, forged in the face of Nazi oppression, expressed itself throughout his years on the Supreme Court. In 2002, Freedom of Information Oklahoma named its annual 1st Amendment award in his honor:

The author of numerous legal papers, Opala is an adjunct professor in three law schools, a frequent lecturer at various national judicial and legal education programs and was recipient of the 1997 Oklahoma Bar Association's Award for Judicial Excellence.

In 2006, the State Supreme Court voted to uphold a referee's decision to toss out the Taxpayer Bill of Rights petition. The case was not heard by the Supreme Court; only Opala raised a protest. At the time I wrote:

In July [2006], the Supreme Court voted to strike down the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) petition for an inadequate number of signatures.

Although TABOR's backers gathered 80,000 more signatures than were required, the Court's referee claimed that 81,000 signatures were gathered by circulators who were not "qualified electors," a term that refers to any adult residing in the state of Oklahoma, whether registered to vote or not. The Supreme Court affirmed the referee's assertions without hearing oral arguments from the petition's supporters.

Whether a professional circulator living in a motel room should count as a qualified elector is a matter for the Legislature to address. The law doesn't specify a requirement for length of residency or quality of housing. Whether TABOR is a good idea or not, the Supreme Court should have taken up the issue and heard arguments for both sides, rather than letting a referee make the decision.

Only Marian Opala, out of the nine justices, insisted that the proponents of the petition be given their day in court.

The decision is suspicious in light of the fact that the same company, National Voter Outreach, had circulated nearly every successful initiative petition in Oklahoma in recent years, including anti-cockfighting and gasoline tax initiatives. NVO's procedures had never before been invalidated. The Court effectively changed the rules in the middle of the game.

The difference, in this case, is that the same powerful business groups who supported the gas tax hike oppose TABOR. The right to initiative petition was enshrined in our state constitution to allow the voters to bypass a legislature in thrall to entrenched special interests. This ruling sends the message to the 300,000 Oklahoma voters who signed the TABOR petition is that you have that right only as long as the entrenched special interests don't object.

As our only resort against this trampling of the state constitution, Oklahomans should vote to keep Justice Marian Opala and to get rid of the rest.

Opala served a brief term as Chief Justice in the early 1990s. In 2005, when it was his turn in the rotation, the other eight justices changed the rules to allow the then-Chief Justice to continue for an unprecedented second term. Opala filed a federal suit, which was ultimately unsuccessful. At the time, Opala explained to the Journal Record his passion for the law:

"Judges owe their utmost allegiance to the majesty of the law and not to institutional interests," said Opala. "I'm very much committed and in love with this nation's constitutional order. That's what fires me up. - We protect everybody. We protect the government from abuse by individuals, we protect the individual from abuse by the government, and we protect corporations from abuse by both. That's our system: protect everybody, not just some people. And that's the job I love.

"When I grew up, I was not protected by a constitutional order such as ours," said Opala. "I grew up between Hitler and Stalin, neither of whom cared about the law. That's the reason for my passion for the orderly process of law. Who else but a foreigner would have that passion?"

"Me, I just say look, it's a little minority of some small-minded religious wackos who think they can tell people what kind of T-shirts and what kind of music they can listen to, and the smart, rational, reasonable people of Oklahoma are never going to buy into that." -- Wayne Coyne, April 29, 2009

So yesterday, September 26, 2010, on Twitter, Wayne Coyne, evidently part of some small-minded, wacky, religious minority, told Mary Fallin, frontrunner in the race for Oklahoma governor, what kind of music she should listen to -- namely, his:

Elected official Congress woman @Maryfallin does not like The Flaming Lips or our song"Do you Realize??" http://yfrog.com/jvzwzuj
2:28 PM Sep 26th via Twitter for iPhone

Please tell @maryfallin she should listen again .. We come in peace. http://yfrog.com/mvn0gij
2:47 PM Sep 26th via Twitter for iPhone

Note that Mr. Coyne did not link the story in which Fallin committed the allegedly outrageous dis of his song. He linked photos of himself.

Someone whom I follow retweeted Coyne's comments. I retweeted "Please tell @maryfallin she should listen again...." with the comment: "How needy is this?"

What terrible slam did Congresswoman Fallin inflict on the Oklahoma's "official" state "rock" song? It was in a Q&A, back in July just before the primary, for Oklahoma City satire blog The Lost Ogle:

11. What do you think of "Do You Realize??" being Oklahoma's official rock song?

I'm more of a country music gal. It wasn't my first choice.

A pretty mild expression of personal preferences, probably an opinion shared by most of Fallin's prospective constituents, and surely the sort of thing a tolerant, broad-minded artiste like Mr. Coyne should respect, n'est-ce pas?

Instead, he urged his Twitter followers to proselytize Fallin, to convert her to a fan of the Flaming Lips and his song. His followers rose (sunk, more truthfully) to the occasion:

hhhancock @Maryfallin what's wrong with you ?

renatayb Tasteless Bitch .. "@waynecoyne: Elected official Congress woman @Maryfallin does not like The Flaming Lips or our song"Do you Realize??"

chadosko Ef that. Ef her! RT @waynecoyne: Elected official Congress woman @Maryfallin doesn't like The Flaming Lips or our song"Do you Realize??" #fb

cumbriandrunk You have 15000 more friends than her! @waynecoyne: Elected official Congress woman @Maryfallin does not like The Flaming Lips.

shonuffsteve @waynecoyne @maryfallin hey Mary - free your mind and your a[--] will follow !!! Hey Wayne comin back to Belfast soon???

This may be the prize-winner:

ghostkga @waynecoyne how can @maryfallin not like you? she needs to expirence free love and peace! and maybe a joint.

The Flaming Lips seem to have quite the cult following. From concert videos and articles I've seen, it seems to be more about the spectacle of the event and a kind of cult of personality around Coyne rather than the music itself. Someone has described their musical style as psychedelic, which I take to mean "the kind of music that sounds interesting to those who have ingested psychedelic drugs" or perhaps to someone like the "Double Rainbow" guy.

A couple of years ago I was in the library returning books and saw their album, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, on the return shelf, so I checked it out to see what all the fuss was about. "Do You Realize??" is one of the tracks on the album. I gave it a chance, listened to it twice all the way through, but just couldn't get into it. Here I thought that David Gates and Bread were the apotheosis of Oklahoma-based, wimpy, whiny, lethargic pop music, but Wayne Coyne makes David Gates sound like Jerry Lee Lewis by comparison. "Do You Realize??" makes a play for profundity, but it's just banal, condescending lyrics set against a vapid musical backdrop.

It's my belief that a rock 'n' roll song, particularly one worthy of designation as a state rock song, ought to have a beat -- as in "it's got a back beat, you can't lose it, any old time you choose it." If we have to have a state rock song, something by Wanda Jackson, a pioneer of rock 'n' roll, would have been a better choice. ("Let's Have a Party" would have been a great pick, but I also like Charles G. Hill's meteorologically-inspired suggestion of a recently-rediscovered Wanda Jackson track, "Funnel of Love.")

(One of the candidates for first-ever rock record -- "Rag Mop" -- was recorded at the KVOO studios in Tulsa in 1949.)

Whether you like the Flaming Lips or not, surely you'd agree that we should all have the right to like the Flaming Lips or not. No one should be browbeaten to conform to one notion of musical taste. (Unless -- was that Hammer and Sickle t-shirt more than a bit of hipster irony?)

OH, BY THE WAY: Do you realize Mary Fallin has a 26-point lead in the governor's race?

UPDATE 2010/09/27: I managed to offend a couple of folks after I tweeted a link to this piece. I was away from Twitter most of the day, but a friend gave me a heads-up via DM. Photographer Jeremy Charles complained that I failed to include the context of the Wayne Coyne quote at the top of this page:

jeremycharles @BatesLine you call yourself a journalist? You completely left out the context of @waynecoyne's first quote in your blog post.

I did link to the article from which the quote came -- an AP story about Coyne's complaint about Oklahoma legislators who voted against adopting his song as the official state rock song. I assumed readers would recall that, but perhaps it would have been well to spell that out.

The context actually makes Coyne look worse. The legislators who voted against making "Do You Realize??" the state song didn't tell anyone they couldn't or shouldn't listen to the song. The legislators simply said they didn't want to give the song or the band an official state endorsement. On the other hand, Coyne did tell someone -- Mary Fallin -- what kind of music she should listen to -- his.

Someone else (who has since deleted her tweets pertaining to the matter) helpfully pointed out that the song was selected by POPULAR VOTE (caps hers) and asked (paraphrasing) if I had a problem with that. I pointed out in reply that the daily paper's editorial page regularly skewers politicians elected by popular vote -- surely that's OK?

De gustibus non est disputandum: So said the ancient Romans. If you enjoy the music of the Flaming Lips, I would not seek to deprive you of that appreciation. I would simply ask that, in return, you allow folks like me and Mary Fallin at peace in our non-appreciation of the band.

UPDATE: midnight, 2010/08/25. Nearly 120,000 Oklahoma Republicans voted in the runoff, and 70% of them voted for John Doak. Congratulations to Mr. Doak and the Oklahoma GOP. This year's turnout is only slightly lower than the 2006 runoff, which was dominated by the high-profile, expensive and fierce runoff for Lt. Governor between Scott Pruitt and Todd Hiett.

(Turnout was up almost 10% in the 5th Congressional District runoff. About 42,000 voted in the 2006 runoff between Mary Fallin and Mick Cornett, while about 46,000 voted in this year's James Lankford vs. Kevin Calvey bout. Fallin beat Cornett 63-37. Lankford beat Calvey 65-35.)

There's always the danger, in a minor election especially, that people will vote for someone with a familiar name. That's a problem if the name is familiar for the wrong reasons. How else can you explain a first place primary finish for John Crawford, the former Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner who was the subject of a federal corruption investigation.

James L. Harlin (FSA, CLU, ChFC, FLMI, MAAA) was an informant to the FBI during its investigation of John P. Crawford during his term as Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner from 1995 to 1999. Last week, Harlin spoke to the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC). Charlie Meadows, OCPAC chairman, sent Harlin's statement out to his email list. (If you'd like to subscribe to the OCPAC's weekly email newsletter, send a note to Mr. Meadows at charliemeadows7 at gmail dot com.)

Harlin alleges that Crawford, as Mid-Continent Life actuary, created an actuarially unsound insurance product, then, as Insurance Commissioner, interfered with the sale of the company, abused his power to seize the company, destroyed the company and hundreds of Oklahoma jobs, and deterred other investment in Oklahoma by an outside company; Crawford's official actions, according to Harlin, convinced them that Oklahoma was a corrupt backwater of cronyism.

Oklahoma Republicans need to show up at the polls today, August 24, 2010, and vote for John Doak for Insurance Commissioner. Doak has strong industry experience, is a conservative, and has a sterling reputation. He will be a strong standard-bearer in the November election. Crawford's name on the ballot would not only kill our chances of having a pro-life, anti-Obamacare Insurance Commissioner, but it's likely to stain the entire Republican ticket.

Here is Mr. Harlin's statement:

John Crawford & Mid-Continent Life August 18, 2010

Purpose

To share my direct experience with John Crawford when he was Insurance Commissioner. To defeat Crawford in the primary runoff August 24 because there is a strong chance that the Republican nominee will become the next commissioner.

Opening

There are numerous examples of John Crawford's incompetence, cronyism and corruption. These include his weak credentials as an actuary, channeling money to his son in a dubious technology scheme, having his chief of staff raise campaign funds while on the payroll of a company he illegally seized, FBI investigations, etc.

MCL

However, I want to focus on Mid-Continent Life Insurance Company. MCL was the oldest insurance company incorporated in the State of Oklahoma and was formed by the Stewart family around the time of Statehood.

MCL operated successfully for over 70 years in the traditional life insurance business.

In the late 70's a group of MCL managers designed a new product called "Extra Life" that tried to take advantage of the hyperinflation and inordinately high interest rates caused by the financial mayhem created by the Carter administration. That mayhem is being repeated today by Obama... but that's a story for another day.

The actuary for MCL at the time this product was created was John Crawford. He certified the financial strength of the company, the integrity of the dividends, and the pricing of the products. He did this certification every single year up until 1986. He did this even though the economic circumstances changed during the Regan years to the point that the dividends and the pricing of the product were no longer sustainable.

In 1987, Florida Power bought MCL. Seeing Florida Power's financial resources, Crawford decided to increase his fees tenfold. At this point Crawford was summarily fired.

In the early 90's Crawford ran as a Democrat for congress (I remember meeting Crawford at the park in Crescent on the fourth of July when he was running) and lost. In 1994 he switched parties and rode in on the coattails of Gov. Keating to become the insurance commissioner.

A new management team arrived at MCL in 1995, 18 years after the "Extra Life" product was launched. Within 3 months this new management team discovered the problem of unsustainable dividends and pricing in the product. The management team laid out a course of action to correct the problems in order to maintain the solvency of the company. In 1996 the point was reached of needing to cut the dividends and raise the rates. This plan was contractually allowed within the provisions of the policy and was later judged by the court to be the proper course of action.

In early 1997, as a standard of protocol, the management team presented the plan to Crawford in a confidential meeting. Four days later MCL's President received a solicitation along with an offer of a bribe from a friend of Crawford's to channel the company to him (the friend) in conjunction with Crawford's support. The MCL President refused and reported the incident to Florida Power officials.

Two months later, Crawford abused his power as commissioner to seize the company. He demanded that Florida Power pay millions of dollars to cover up the financial shortfall that he had mishandled when he was the company actuary. Statements from people at the time of his firing showed this was Crawford's way of getting retribution against Florida Power.

Crawford removed the entire MCL management team and proceeded to try to prosecute them and their lawyers even though none of them designed the product or certified to the financial integrity of the company for the nearly two decades prior to their arrival. That prosecution was ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence.

Each member of the MCL management team went on to establish very successful careers. The President became the Chairman, President & CEO of Chase Insurance, the largest bank insurance enterprise in America. MCL's general Counsel became the General Counsel for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. He now oversees the legal framework for the entire U.S. insurance industry for every state in the country. The Chief Actuary is now the Chief Actuary of the largest TPA in America. The Chief Financial Officer became the CFO of a large Oklahoma company. The marketing officer became the President of several international insurance companies. This was a superb management team with outstanding credentials and an impeccable record of performance excellence.

Because of John Crawford, MCL no longer exists. Hundreds of Oklahoma jobs were lost. The insurance industry considers Oklahoma a "backwater" for doing business. Florida Power had an opportunity to invest $500 million in a power related industry in Oklahoma. They passed on this investment because of their treatment by Crawford and his cronies. The MCL President had first-hand knowledge that Florida Power shared their dim view of Oklahoma with many of their Fortune 500 friends.

So bottom line, all the headlines of corruption, cronyism and incompetence surrounding John Crawford are vividly real. Oklahoma consumers, the insurance industry, and Oklahoma businesses cannot afford a repeat of Crawford as Insurance Commissioner.

It is imperative to defeat Crawford in this primary runoff on August 24.

Here are Charlie Meadows's comments on the Doak-Crawford runoff:

John Doak has a great deal of experience in a variety of levels in the insurance industry. He is a solid conservative and I believe a man of high moral character and integrity which is a most important qualification for this office. The insurance commissioner has enormous regulatory powers over both small and very large businesses and as such the person must be above reproach. I believe his opponent, John Crawford to be corrupt, a charlatan and an opportunist. He was the first Republican elected to this position on the coat-tails of Frank Keating's election to governor. During his one term in office, before voters sent him packing in 1998, his office was under numerous allegations of fraud, nepotism, mismanagement and corruption.

The liberal Democrat Incumbent Kim Holland really wants John Crawford to become the nominee as she will have a field day bringing up all those very serious allegations from the past. She will have a difficult time defeating John Doak, but Crawford is so bad, I will even vote for Holland over Crawford if he is the nominee as the Republican party can not afford to put a suspected crook in office with a "R" by his name.

For all Oklahoma Republicans and for some Democrats around the state, there's a runoff election next Tuesday, August 24, 2010. Early voting at county election boards across the state began on Friday and continues Saturday, August 21, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Monday, August 23, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The runoff is to decide party nominees following a primary in which no candidate received 50% of the vote. There are only 11 nominations for federal, statewide, and legislative offices to be decided on Tuesday. (Runoffs for non-partisan judicial races will be held in November.)

Republican runoffs:

U. S. House District 2: Daniel Edmonds, Charles Thompson
U. S. House District 5: Kevin Calvey, James Lankford
Insurance Commissioner: John Doak, John Crawford
State Senate District 44: Ralph Shortey, James Davenport
State House District 27: Josh Cockroft, Richard Bennett
State House District 100: Elise Hall, David Looby

Democrat runoffs:

State House District 3: James Lockhart, Matt Webb
State House District 18: Carolyn McNatt Hill, Donnie Condit
State House District 21: Jerry Tomlinson, Nathan W. Williams
State House District 66: Eli Potts, Andrew Thomas Williams
State House District 86: John Auffet, William T. Will Fourkiller

The only runoffs for Tulsa County voters are for the Republican nomination for Insurance Commissioner and the Democrat nomination for HD 66.

I'm supporting John Doak for Insurance Commissioner, and I urge my fellow Republicans to do the same. Doak, a Tulsan, has been an insurance agent and an insurance executive, in the business since graduating from OU in 1988. Doak has been endorsed by many prominent Oklahoma Republicans, including former Sen. Don Nickles, State Sen. Randy Brogdon, Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel, and Corporation Commissioner Dana Murphy, who writes:

The office of Insurance Commissioner is extremely important to our state. The Republican Party and the citizens of Oklahoma are best served with John Doak, who is passionately pro-life, as our nominee. He has joined a federal lawsuit against Obama Care and is the insurance commissioner candidate who best represents Oklahoma values. Through John Doak's experience with his daughter, who is the survivor of three open-heart surgeries, as well as his outstanding professional experience in the insurance industry as both an agent and executive, I believe he truly understands consumers' needs as well as the business aspects of the insurance industry.

Here's Doak speaking at the Muskogee Tea Party Voter Education Rally on July 2:

And an ad that aired before the July primary:

I heard Doak speak at the candidate forum sponsored by the USA Patriots. He was a very impressive and dynamic speaker, and he won over the audience.

Doak's opponent is John Crawford. Crawford was elected Insurance Commissioner in 1994 but was narrowly defeated for re-election in 1998 by Carroll Fisher, who left his own personal stain on the office.

Crawford's final year in office was overshadowed by a Federal investigation into whether he misused his office to the benefit of a company connected with his son:

In 1998 the Daily Oklahoman reported Crawford was the target of an FBI investigation into alleged fraud and nepotism regarding computer contracts he awarded on behalf of Enid-based insurance company American Standard Life & Accident Co. The FBI probe focused on allegations Crawford's son, the late John P. Crawford III, profited from the contract.

American Standard Life was declared insolvent and placed in receivership in 1991. When Crawford became insurance commissioner in 1995, he became responsible for either the rehabilitation or dissolution of the Enid insurance company. The liquidation of American Standard was ordered in October 1997 in Oklahoma County District Court.

In 1995, while under Crawford's control, American Standard allegedly entered into a $60,000 contract with a Nevada firm, Advanced Computer Technology Inc., a company whose registered agent was "John P. Crawford," the Oklahoman reported.

The investigation was dropped without charges against Crawford. Key Insurance Commission documents regarding the contract had gone missing, and John P. Crawford III committed suicide in January 1998.

Crawford jumped into the 2010 campaign on the last day of filing, apparently with no previous announcement of his intention to run. Crawford reused a 1998 TV ad featuring a general election endorsement from Jim Inhofe. While the ad's run on Cox Cable may have been a mistake, blogger Jamison Faught has his doubts:

While this may be the case, it does not explain why the Crawford campaign knowingly placed the ad on YouTube and on his website. A Cox employee might have mistakenly aired the wrong commercial, but they could not have edited his website. In addition, the ad was re-worked to include a "paid for by" disclaimer reflecting his 2010 account, so some work had to have been done on the ad before running it, and I find it hard to believe that Cox did not ask for approval on the re-worked edition.

Right before the primary, I received a couple of strange form letters in support of Crawford, similar in appearance to one another, one from a gun rights group that I'd never heard of (signed by political consultant Kirk Shelley) and one from an individual I'd never heard of. It made me wonder just who is in the shadows backing Crawford's run.

The person who will most benefit if Crawford wins the runoff: incumbent Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland, a Democrat from Tulsa. Many Republicans would have difficulty backing Crawford because of the questions about his stewardship of the office, and you can expect that Holland's campaign and the media will call attention to Crawford's history.

In John Doak, we have a Republican candidate for Insurance Commissioner with a truly squeaky clean record, a long history in the insurance business, and the energy and message to win the office in Novermber. Please join me in voting for John "Okie" Doak.

That page about Oklahoma's "Blaine Amendment" (linked by Brandon Dutcher, regarding school vouchers vs. tax credits) had an interesting summary of an Attorney General's opinion:

1984 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 227. ("Funds raised by or through a public trust organized under 60 O.S.1981, § 176 that do not come from the public treasury are not 'public money' and not subject to Article II, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.").

Title 60 trusts are everywhere in Oklahoma government. They exist in part as a way to bypass constitutional limits on government contracting.

Although OSCN has Attorney General's opinions online, I wasn't able to find the one mentioned.

This is just a brief note to self to see what I can learn about this.

Tom Blumer, writing for Pajamas Media, points to statistics connecting Oklahoma's relatively good unemployment situation to implementation of HB 1804, the strict immigration enforcement bill approved in May 2007

Given the economic damage inflicted on us by the current administration and many state governments, most readers of this column would probably be quite happy to live in a state where:

• The official unemployment rate in March was 6.6%.
• The average unemployment rate in 2009 using the most comprehensive definition was 10.5%, the fourth-lowest in the nation (behind three much smaller states), and far lower than the national average of 16.2%.
• The number of people either working or looking for work has actually grown during the past twelve months (in most states, the labor force has contracted significantly).
• The economy grew in 2008, and probably did so again in 2009.

Unless you live in Oklahoma, you're not in that state.

Blumer goes on to cite statistics showing that, from 2008 to 2009, unemployment among black Oklahomans grew much more slowly (8.7% to 11.1%) than it did for white Oklahomans (almost doubled, 2.9% to 5%). Among Hispanic OKlahomans, unemployment dropped over that same period, from 9% to 7.4%.

In 2008, Oklahoma's economic growth outpaced the national economy, and its welfare and food stamp caseload fell as it was growing in the rest of the country.

Since 1804 passed, Oklahoma has not suffered nearly as much economically as most of the rest of the U.S. In fact, the state can fairly be described, especially on a relative basis, as prosperous. Even before considering the reductions in crime the citizens of Arizona are so desperately seeking in their state's new immigration enforcement measure, what the Sooner State has done seems well worth imitating elsewhere for pocketbook-related reasons alone.

RELATED: Mark Krikorian, posting on National Review's The Corner, links to a study showing the effects of immigration on summer jobs for teenagers:

Long before the current recession, the share of U.S.-born teenagers in the summer labor market had been declining, from 64 percent in 1994 to 48 percent in 2007 (and 45 percent last summer). Immigration is only one cause, but a significant one; in the top ten immigration states, only 45 percent of teens were in the summer labor force in 2007, as opposed to 58 percent in the bottom ten immigration states. What's more, a 10 percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of a state's work force from 1994 to 2007 reduced the labor force participation rate of U.S.-born teenagers by 7.9 percentage points.

The reasons are obvious -- immigrants do the jobs teenagers used to do, like cutting grass, flipping burgers, etc., and since they're almost all adults, employers prefer them to inexperienced teenagers.

Krikorian goes on quote a section pointing out that the teens who aren't working aren't learning the kind of work ethic that they'll need to succeed later in life:

Holding a job as a teenager seems to instill the habits and values that are helpful in finding or retaining gainful employment later in life. This may include showing up on time, following a supervisor's directions, completing tasks, dealing politely with customers, and working hard. Learning good work habits and values seems to become much less likely without holding a job at a young age. Once a person who has little or no work experience reaches full adulthood, learning these skills seems to become more difficult.

But not to worry, says Nancy Pelosi -- thanks to Obamacare, a good work ethic is optional. You can be an artiste and sponge off the rest of us. (Follow the link for video.) Ed Morrissey comments:

Pelosi tells an audience in DC that ObamaCare is an "entrepreneurial bill," because it will let people quit being productive and allow them to leech off of ... entrepreneurs:

We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.

In other words, we should all just join the circus and let Mom and Dad pick up the bill. That's not entrepreneurial; it's a welfare state. If anyone wants to see just what kind of innovation that produces, we only need to see the economies of the Western European nanny states.

While it's a good thing to move away from health insurance locking people to their jobs (which is why employer-funded health insurance was created in the first place -- to attract and retain employees while a government imposed wage freeze was in effect), there was a much simpler way, promoted by Republicans like Tom Coburn, that would have made delinked one's health coverage from one's job, preserved individual liberty and responsibility in health care choices, and helped to control costs.

My friend Tyson Wynn has an editorial on WelchOK.com about tomorrow's special election in Craig County to extend a sales tax that currently expires in 2023 to 2040 in order to pay for a new community center.

You read that right: They intend to borrow against assumed revenues far into the future in order to build a building at the county fairgrounds, a building with no likely economic impact.

Further, the plan to build the "community center" is just downright bad planning. To fund this disaster, we're being asked to extend a tax that's not even set to expire until 2023. And the extension goes until 2040. And these people are bringing this to us with straight faces? The only thing crazier than this is all those credit cards Discover gives kids in college so they can be paying for tacos for 20 years. If the tax extension passes, they sell the bonds now, get the funding now, and build the facility now. Without paying a dime for it. And they won't pay a dime until 2024. Seriously? Is it really good economics to borrow $2.8 million that we won't even begin paying on for 14 years? Can you fathom what kind of interest $2.8 million accrues over 14 years? And it won't be fully paid off until 2040.

And why are we extending the courthouse sales tax instead of a voting on a new tax? Because, as a county, we're maxed out. We can't vote new tax; we can only extend an existing tax. Sometimes, you just have to stop spending money and get caught up before you buy a luxury item, which this "community center" certainly is.

Wynn goes on to ask what Craig County will do if, having maxed out its bonding capacity and committed sales tax funds far into the future, it is faced with a real emergency needing immediate funding. I'd add that there's no guarantee bond buyers will want municipal bonds backed with revenues decades into the future. They're likely to want premium interest for that level of risk.

I don't have a vote, but it seems like Craig County voters would be pretty foolish to vote yes on Tuesday.

In the Republican primary race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Shawn Hime, a former assistant to incumbent Democratic Superintendent Sandy Garrett, has attacked Janet Barresi in a fundraising letter for having contributed in the past to Democratic candidates. Barresi responded tonight with a press release, which you can read in full on Jamison Faught's Musings of a Muskogee Politico. Here are some key excerpts:

Contrary to his mudslinging, I am a lifelong conservative Republican and have been a staunch supporter of pro-life organizations and conservative Republicans - 86 percent of all my political contributions have been to Republicans and GOP organizations.

I have contributed to a handful of Democrats who (at least at the time) were supportive of education reform, particularly school choice. I have always been upfront about those contributions because I wanted to work within the system. When I saw that wasn't possible, I announced that I was running against Sandy Garrett - before she dropped out.

Hime also claimed in the letter that Barresi lacked experience working in education. In fact, Barresi helped start two very successful charter schools:

One of those schools, Harding Charter Preparatory High School, was named to Newsweek magazine's list of the best high schools in the country after only six years of operation. Last year Harding saw its first National Merit Finalist, another student named to the Academic All-State team and Harding students received $1.65 million in college scholarships. One hundred percent of our students graduated last year and 96 percent went on to college.

Their accomplishments came in spite of the fact that the majority of Harding students are from poverty level backgrounds. Twenty two percent of last year's class were the first in their family to graduate high school, and 65 percent were the first in their families to go to college.

As you can see, I don't believe in excuses. I achieve results. And I have no problem putting my record on education against the Garrett/Hime record anytime, anywhere.

DISCLOSURE: Given the huge banner ad on the sidebar, it's probably superfluous to point out that the Janet Barresi campaign is a sponsor of BatesLine.

Below a news release from the Randy Brogdon for Governor campaign. I have to say I've been disappointed at the readiness by some of his erstwhile allies to assume the worst about Sen. Brogdon and to take distortions of his statements as gospel truth. I've been disappointed to see this both from his fellow conservative Republicans and from the populist Democrats who were his allies in the fight to stop the Tulsa County sales tax for river development.

Randy Brogdon is as self-effacing, cheerful, and positive a politician as I have ever met, while remaining true to his well-considered principles. He doesn't deserve to be characterized as a wild-eyed radical, particularly by those who know better because they've dealt with him personally.

Oklahoma needs a governor who will face facts, who will deal straightforwardly with the problems we face, yet will do so in a gracious way. We need someone who knows state government, knows the laws and the constitution, and can do more than recite conservative catchphrases. Randy Brogdon can be that kind of governor.

A Statement from Senator Randy Brogdon

There Already is an Oklahoma Militia

Brogdon says historical context represented as personal opinion in news reports

Contact:
James Parsons
Communication Director
888-800-7365

Recent statements of mine regarding an Oklahoma militia have been misrepresented, taken out of context and are badly misunderstood. I have stated that the formation of and participation in, an Oklahoma militia is legal based on both federal and state law.

However, remarks I made in historical context were inaccurately reported as my personal opinion. Specifically, historical speculation about the frame of mind of the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution was reported as if it were my deeply held belief. Then these misrepresentations were used to distort my true beliefs, while implying that I have violent intentions.

So let me set the facts straight about my beliefs on dealing with the federal government, the role of a militia in Oklahoma, and how best to effect change in government.

Both the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect individual participation in a militia. Membership in such a group is a form of self-expression, so our right to free speech comes into focus. The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Our Founding Fathers were suspicious of big, centralized government. However, nobody can mistake this statement as some sort of right to insurrection.

The fact is that Oklahoma state law already establishes and provides for, an "unorganized militia" as an officially recognized part of Oklahoma military forces.

§44-41. Composition of Militia - Classes.

The Militia of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three (3) classes: The National Guard, the Oklahoma State Guard, and the Unorganized Militia.

23. "State military forces" means the National Guard of the state, as defined in Title 32, United States Code, the organized naval militia of the state, and any other military force organized under the Constitution and laws of the state to include the unorganized militia (the state defense force when not in a status subjecting them to exclusive jurisdiction under Chapter 47 of Title 10, United States Code).

These statutes are not part of overlooked or arcane law. The legislature has rewritten this section numerous times over decades, most recently in 2007.

So undeniably, a militia in Oklahoma is not only legal - it already exists as a matter of fact.

No, Oklahoma does not need to activate the unorganized militia. If we ever do, it certainly won't be to invade Washington, D.C. In fact, Oklahoma's unorganized militia is prohibited from operating outside the state.

I do plan to fight what I consider to be an over-reaching federal government, but I will do it with the Constitutional tools provided by the framers. For years, I have advocated adherence to the 10 th Amendment as a weapon against big government.

As a legislator for much of the last decade I have routinely proposed new law. When enough of my Senate colleagues agree with me laws are changed or enacted, peacefully. Yet, this week, some people seem convinced that I would abandon the democratic process to wage actual war on the federal government which is simply bizarre.

I was saddened that some in the anti-militia crowd can be as irrational and violent as those they condemn. As this story developed over the week, I received as many as a half-dozen death threats, not only directed at me but at my family as well. One unpleasant person said they would only be satisfied when I am swinging from a tree. Hopefully, the thought was fleeting. The threats were forwarded to the OSBI for investigation.

Thanks to Ron Denton for the heads-up. The State House Appropriations and Budget Committee will vote tomorrow, April 8, 2010, on SB 1284, the Oklahoma Quality Events Incentive Act. The Tulsa Metro Chamber wants people to send emails to the committee members urging passage.

(To read the legislation, go here, type in SB1284, click retrieve, and then click Engrossed. That's the version that passed the Senate.)

I rewrote the Chamber's email:

I urge you to vote against Senate Bill 1284, the Oklahoma Quality Events Incentive Act tomorrow in the House Appropriations and Budget Committee.

This bill will is a giveaway to out-of-state businesses that compete with local entrepreneurs for the entertainment dollars of Oklahomans. The companies that will benefit from this act have no long-term or even short-term investment in our state. They are literally here today and gone tomorrow.

The Oklahoma economy is currently facing tremendous financial challenges. The best thing we can do to help our economy is provide a level playing field with lower tax rates and a more efficient government, thus creating a stable economic environment that encourages people to start and grow businesses. The road to prosperity is not paved with special deals for special people.

On the February 9, 2010, edition of CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Kramer, Oklahoma 1st District Congressman John Sullivan discussed the regulatory obstacles to using America's reserves of natural gas to move toward energy independence. Kramer called Sullivan one of the "good guys in Washington when it comes to the need to adopt natural gas" and mentioned Sullivan's authorship of HR 1622, funding for natural gas vehicle research, development, and demonstration projects -- the bill passed the House last year and is awaiting action by the Senate Energy Committee. Kramer also mentioned that Sullivan is one of the original cosponsors on HR 1835, the NAT GAS act (New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions), which would give tax credits to auto manufacturers for building natural gas-powered vehicles and to consumers for buying them. HR 1835 and companion bill S 1408 are both stuck in committee.

In the interview, Kramer and Sullivan discussed the possibility that the EPA could ban the principal method for reaching and extracting natural gas from rock formations, in the name of protecting drinking water. Sullivan said that there's never been a case of the hydraulic fracturing technique contaminating an aquifer.

Congressman Sullivan will hold a town hall meeting tonight, Thursday, February 18, 2010, at 5 pm, at the Central Center at Centennial Park, on 6th Street west of Peoria in Tulsa.

MORE: T. Boone Pickens (whom I may eventually forgive for his hostile takeover attempt on Cities Service back in the early '80s) comments on the Kramer/Sullivan interview:

When it comes to investing, natural gas is a "long-term theme," says Mad Money host Jim Cramer, who describes it as an energy source that's 40 percent cleaner than coal, 30 percent cleaner than oil, and much more realistic as a bridge fuel than wind or solar when it comes to combating climate change or ending America's addiction to foreign oil.

So what's Cramer's problem with natural gas? He thinks Washington doesn't get the picture, that's what. Cramer invited Rep. John Sullivan (OK-1) on his show Monday night to discuss the prospects for enhancing America's energy security with this inexpensive, clean-burning domestic fuel.

He couldn't have picked a better guest. For decades, Oklahoma's First Congressional District, which Sullivan represents, has been been a national leader in energy production. Sullivan is continuing this tradition as the lead Republican sponsor of the bipartisan NAT GAS Act in the House, which now has 130 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Sullivan's take on natural gas is simple and straightforward. It is "the bridge fuel as we look at an all-of-the-above strategy," he told Cramer. Later, he added that "alternative energy sources aren't going to happen for a long time. We have 120 years' reserves of natural gas here in America."

I'm pleased and proud to welcome a new BatesLine sponsor: Janet Barresi, a candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Barresi has an impressive background in K-12 education, including direct experience in dealing with the challenges of urban education as a founder of two successful charter schools in Oklahoma City.

I believe our schools should be as great as our state, but that goal cannot be achieved without solid leadership in the Department of Education, which is why I have chosen to run for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

My platform is very simple. I want to ensure that parents are always encouraged to be involved in the education of their children and that they have the ability to choose the correct education for their child. I want to create a State Department of Education that is a resource for local districts, and I want to ensure that our testing of students is a byproduct of good teaching that enables us to truly understand how effective we are being, while empowering teachers to do what they do best: teach.

I know we can do better than we are today. Through my experiences in launching what is now Independence Charter Middle School, as well as Harding Charter Preparatory High School (which was recently recognized as one of the top high schools in America by Newsweek), I have seen that high expectations, a rigorous curriculum and an involved staff can be successful, regardless of the socio-economic background of the students.

Beyond her volunteer work in the schools, Janet Barresi was a speech pathologist and then a dentist for 24 years before retiring.

Tulsa Chigger, who is our local watchdog on charter school issues, had this to say:

I whole-heartedly endorse Dr. Janet Barresi and her campaign for the office of Oklahoma State Superintendent of Schools. She is an experienced reformer with the right set of priorities. I have personally worked with her on some charter school issues in years past.

I urge you to learn about Dr. Barresi by clicking that ad in the sidebar and visiting her website. I think you'll be impressed.

(A click-through is also a nice way to tell her thanks for sponsoring BatesLine.)

American Majority's Tulsa candidate training seminar, originally scheduled for just before Christmas, will be held in two Saturdays, on February 20, 2010, from 8:30 to 4:00. It will be at the Tulsa Technology Center Lemley Campus, in the Career Services Center, at 3638 S Memorial. There is a registration fee (see below).

There will also be an American Majority activist training seminar in Tulsa this Tuesday night, February 9, 2010, 6:30 - 9 p.m., at St. James Methodist, 111th & Yale. This event is free of charge.

Here are the details for the activist training event:

American Majority Oklahoma together with OK for Tea is pleased to announce that an Activist Training will be held on Tuesday, February 9th in Tulsa, OK for citizens looking to make a difference in their community, state and nation.

The seminar will be held at St. James United Methodist Church located at 5050 E. 111th Street in Tulsa. Registration for the event will begin at 6:15 pm, with the first session beginning at 6:30 pm. The seminar will end at approximately 9:00 pm. This cost for this training is FREE and open to the public.

American Majority Activist Trainings are designed specifically to educate and unite liberty-minded activists from around the state by giving them practical ideas for successful activism and equipping them with creative ways to be more effective in their communities.

Topics for the seminars include: "Building Coalitions and Organizing Events", "Hitting the Campaign Trail", and "Holding Elected Officials Accountable through Effective Communication"

Upon completion of the seminar, participants will receive complimentary continuing education materials, communications curriculum, and a list of recommended reading materials to become better equipped and stronger activists in their communities.

To RSVP for the event or for more information, contact Trait Thompson with American Majority Oklahoma at 918-289-0159 (e-mail: trait@americanmajority.org).

Here are the details for the candidate training event:

Every elected official, from school board member to state legislator to the President of the United States plays a vital role in shaping the policies and direction of our communities, states, and nation. These offices deserve men and women who are grounded in the principles of liberty and individual freedom.

American Majority Oklahoma is hosting a Candidate Training on Saturday, February 20 at Tulsa Technology Center (Business and Career Development Training Center) located at 3638 S. Memorial in Tulsa. The training will run from 8:30am to 4:00pm with registration beginning at 8:00am.

Regardless of campaign experience, American Majority's Candidate Training Program makes running for office easier! American Majority Candidate Training Seminars are designed specifically to educate candidates on every level how to run effective and victorious campaigns and prepare them to become successful elected officials.

The Candidate Training Program includes:

• Lectures* from campaign veterans, including:
• "Your Campaign Plan to Win: Planning for the Time, People and Money to Win."
• "Dollars and Sense: Fundraising for What You Need, Not What You Can Get."
• "New Media Engagement: The New Ways to Talk to Voters and Engage Supporters."
• "Grassroots Action: How Ordinary People can get Extraordinary Results."
• "American Majority's Core Principles."
• Personalized communications training.
• Interaction with individuals thoroughly involved with the issues confronting your state.
• The opportunity to network with other liberty-minded candidates.
• A complimentary resource guidebook full of material designed to further assist candidates.

Upon completion of the seminar, candidates will receive continuing education materials, access to podcasts and other presentations, communications curriculum, and suggestions to help them utilize think-tank resources.

The cost is $50 per candidate/first attendee in advance or $75 per candidate/first attendee at the door, and $25 for each additional attendee (spouse, campaign staff, campaign volunteers, etc.) in advance or $40 for each additional attendee (spouse, campaign staff, campaign volunteers, etc.) at the door. Space is limited.

Please click here to use our online reservation system and secure your place now! If you have any questions, please contact Trait Thompson at Trait@americanmajority.org or call (918)-289-0159.

American Majority is a non-profit and non-partisan organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market.

*Lectures are subject to change

(Sorry to be so late in posting this.)

The Tulsa County Republican Party is holding an open county-wide meeting at the Tulsa Technology Center Lemley Campus, Saturday, Feb. 6, 2010, 9 a.m. Party officials will give an update on local party activities, and many candidates running in 2010 will be there. Speechifying, I am told, will be kept to a minimum. Here are the details:

The Tulsa County Republican Party will hold a county wide meeting and rally this Saturday, February 6, 2010 beginning at 9:00 am. There will be numerous GOP primary candidates in attendance allowing voters time to meet and speak with the candidates. This event will be held at the Tulsa Technology Center; Lemley Campus located at 3420 S. Memorial in Tulsa and should be completed by 11:00 am. A short survey will be conduced asking GOP voters what they think about national, state and local issues involving government and the Republican Party in general. Included in the survey will be a straw poll involving open seats in 2010 at the national, state and local levels. The meeting will include information on the progress of the Tulsa County Republican Party over the past year and on plans for the remainder of 2010. 2010 is a BIG year for Republicans and we encourage everyone to attend this important meeting.

Mike Ford has a timely word:

ATTN: CONSERVATIVES

The email FWDs won't change policy.

Talk radio is not community participation.

The GOP cannot be blamed for ignoring our values if we do not show up and promote them.

Time to get plugged in and active.

Save the Party, Save the Nation.

The Citizens in Charge Foundation has issued its 2010 report card on voter initiative rights in each of the states. (The full state-by-state report is an 8.2 MB PDF. The flag pictures are pretty -- I always like to see the old-fashioned font, with the arched A, used for OKLAHOMA, instead of the Star Trek original series font -- but they make the document much bigger than necessary.)

Oklahoma was given a C+: Oklahoma gets high marks constitutional guarantee of the right to propose constitutional amendments and ordinary statutes by petition, and to petition for a referendum to repeal a statute, and for including all political subdivisions under its constitutional provisions.

But Oklahoma loses points for an insufficient period for gathering signatures (only 90 days -- second shortest) and a high signature requirement (15% of the last general election for constitutional amendments -- the nation's highest requirement); both provisions make it difficult for grassroots initiatives to make it to the ballot. The report card recommends increasing the signature-gathering period to at least 9 months, reducing the signature requirements to 8% for constitutional amendments and 5% for simple statutes, and tying the signature requirement to the last election for governor, rather than the last general election.

Oklahoma ranks among the toughest states to qualify an initiative for the ballot, with the nation's highest signature requirement and second shortest circulation period. A proposed expansion of the petition period overwhelmingly passed the state legislature in 2009, but was vetoed by the governor. That same year a bill passed that moves the process for challenging the ballot title for an initiative to before signatures are collected, instead of afterward. Additionally, legislators placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 allowing voters to decide whether to tie the number of signatures needed to the last election for Governor. Currently the number is tied to the highest office in the preceding elections, which resulted in a 37 percent increase in the number of signatures needed after the 2008 presidential election.

I'm surprised the report didn't mention the controversy over TABOR and the Oklahoma Three, which had to do with the use of out-of-state petition circulators for the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights proposal. The issue of out-of-state circulators is mentioned in several other states' report cards. The need for paid circulators would diminish if a longer signature period and lower signature requirements were adopted.

I'm happy to see that the opportunity to challenge an initiative's ballot title has been moved earlier in the process. It would be frustrating to go through the trouble of collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures, only to have the measure struck down by a court.

(Hat tip to Bob Weeks at WichitaLiberty.org, who reports that Kansas received low marks -- Kansas has local initiative and referendum, but not at the state level.)

UPDATE: Jason Carini informs us in the comments that there is a state question on the ballot that will improve matters some what. It doesn't change the percentages, but it does eliminate presidential election turnout as a basis for the number of required signatures. If SQ 750 passes, only turnout in the last governor's election will be used to determine signature requirements. This PDF shows the amendment to Article V, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution proposed by SQ 750. Here is the approved ballot language for SQ 750:

This measure amends a section of the State Constitution. The section deals with initiative petitions. It also deals with referendum petitions. It deals with how many signatures are required on such petitions. It changes that requirement.

"Initiative" is the right to propose laws and constitutional amendments.
"Referendum" is the right to reject a law passed by the Legislature.

The following voter signature requirements apply.
8% must sign to propose law
15% must sign to propose to change the State Constitution.
5% must sign to order a referendum.

These percentages are based upon the State office receiving the most total votes at the last General Election. The measure changes this basis. The measure's basis uses every other General Election. General Elections are held every two years. The Governor is on the ballot every four years. The measure's basis only uses General Elections with the Governor on the ballot.

The President is on the ballot in intervening General Elections. The measure's basis does not use General Elections with the President on the ballot.

More votes are usually cast at Presidential General Elections. Thus, the measure would generally have a lowering effect on the number of required signatures.

You can read all the state questions on the Oklahoma Secretary of State's website.

Jamison Faught has caught the Muskogee Phoenix newspaper in an interesting omission. It's in an Associated Press story (originating in the Oklahoman) on two Democratic Oklahoma state senators, Earl Garrison and Kenneth Corn, intervening on behalf of a Muskogee highway contractor named Craig Glover. Glover had been rejected by the pre-qualification committee of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). According to a Dec. 7, 2009, story in the Oklahoman, a company owned by Glover's father had been banned from ODOT work. Glover's father, George Paul Glover, "pleaded no contest in early 2007 to conspiring to use prohibited road material and intimidating a state grand jury witness." After the senators' intervention, ODOT approved the younger Glover's company to bid on ODOT projects, and the company has been awarded $35 million in state highway work.

The curious omission? Only one of the two state senators is mentioned by name in the Phoenix's version of the story, and the one that isn't mentioned is the local legislator, Earl Garrison.

Read the whole story at Musings of a Muskogee Politico.

Via NewsFifty's Oklahoma news page: State Rep. Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie) is considering proposing legislation to reform the structure of county government in Oklahoma. In an Edmond Sun op-ed, Murphey sets forth his concerns. At the heart, the lack of adequate separation of powers when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars:

In the past, I have expressed that I feel it is important for a governing board which approves a budget to not have the ability to specifically direct where that money goes. The chances for politicians to engage in corruption and self-serving political pork appropriations are greatly enhanced when the board's ability to set policy and to specifically direct that spending are combined. In past updates, I have written about how Oklahoma legislators are becoming experts at getting around the constitutional prohibition of this type of conduct.

During the course of my years as a public official, I have observed that county government is a significant area in Oklahoma governance where these two responsibilities are not sufficiently separated. This blurring of the policy and expenditure power results in county governments that are extremely susceptible to "good old boy" politics where county officials can exert strong political influence over employees and vendors in order to create a small political empire funded by taxpayer dollars.

His solution:

County government should operate much like the governance model used in city government. A largely uncompensated board of elected citizen county commissioners should have oversight over a professional county manager who has the same education and qualifications as a city manager. This person would be responsible for hiring the county department heads, thus providing for employees a level of protection from political pressure. Much like a city council, the Board of Commissioners would set policy and budget, but have no ability to direct specific expenditure of funds outside of a competitive bid process.

I approve the idea of limiting the ability of public officials to handpick contractors, but I'll need to be convinced that Murphey's proposal is appropriate for every one of Oklahoma's 77 counties. In fact, the one-size-fits-all structure of Oklahoma county government is a problem that reform should address. In some counties, most of the territory is unincorporated and the few municipalities are small and not in a position to offer a complete slate of basic municipal services. In such places, county government may be the only effective way to deliver those services to residents. In Tulsa and Oklahoma Counties, only a few small areas are unincorporated, and many of those are within the fenceline of a municipality.

During the debates over county home rule in the late '80s and early '90s, there were calls for consolidation of less populous counties. But the relative stability of Oklahoma's county boundaries -- only two new counties since statehood and a handful of boundary adjustments -- is a boon to record keeping and comparisons over time. By contrast, Britain has been tinkering with its local government boundaries for over a century with two major overhauls over the last 35 years. Now there are historic counties and ceremonial counties and administrative counties, which may or may not coincide.

Any county activity that has to do with land records and court records -- county clerk, county assessor, county treasurer, court clerk -- should remain with the 77 counties. But we may want to consider another, more flexible approach to providing municipal services.

One possibility: Create a special class of municipalities incorporating the remaining unincorporated territory in each county. These new entities would be responsible for law enforcement, roads, parks, and other municipal services. They would be governed by some adaptation of the existing "statutory charter" -- the default form of government established by state statute for cities and towns that have yet to adopt a charter of their own. For some services, they may wish to enter into compacts with incorporated cities and towns. Some thought would need to be given to unincorporated areas within an existing municipality's fenceline. i suspect we would want to make it easy for areas within these special county-municipalities to attach themselves to a city or town or to form a new town.

Oklahoma's laws makes it difficult to create new municipalities, particularly anywhere near an existing city or town. Perhaps we should make it easier, so that rural residents could incorporate to protect themselves against annexation, so they can protect their ability to raise livestock, shoot off fireworks, and generally live without the constraints of city ordinances. Berryhill residents might jump at the opportunity.

Whatever the solution, the discussion is worth having, and Rep. Murphey is to be commended afor raising the issue.

New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich traveled to Sen. Tom Coburn's Muskogee farm for a profile which appears in today's edition:

As the health care overhaul heads to the Senate floor, Mr. Coburn is preparing for what he considers a career pinnacle of havoc. Enacting the proposal, he says, would be catastrophic, and so if precedent holds, he will try to hinder it with every annoying tool in his arsenal: filing amendments (he has done that 508 times since joining the Senate, second only to John McCain's 542 in that period), undertaking filibusters and objecting strenuously.

"When it comes to obstructing bills, he is part of a very tiny pantheon in the history of the Senate," said Ross Baker, a Senate historian at Rutgers University.

To Mr. Coburn, charges of obstructionism are a mark of honor he will wear as proudly as ever in the coming weeks.

"My mission is to frame this health care debate in terms of the fiscal ruin of this country," said the 61-year-old Mr. Coburn, who recently railed on the Senate floor that the federal debt was "waterboarding" his five grandchildren. "I have instructed my staff to clear my schedule for every minute that bill is on the floor."

After inflicting migraines in Washington, Mr. Coburn goes home on weekends to Muskogee, where he treats patients on Mondays. He says he does his best thinking aboard his John Deere mower, which can run 20 miles an hour and slash through pretty much anything on his seven-acre meadow. Mr. Coburn dons earplugs, stares straight ahead and cuts a determined swath, just as he does in the Senate.

And now for the story behind the story, from Politico:

While in Muskogee, Oklahoma, Leibovich was gamely listening to Coburn coo over how much he loves mowing his fields with his beloved John Deere tractor. At the end of the interview, we hear, Coburn bravely attempted to teach the scribe just how to use his John Deere. (Apparently, it's quite the machine, with different protruding levers and what not. For clarification, please imagine the chicken scene in "Footloose.")

Leibovich, a city kid at heart hailing from the Boston suburbs, became instantly overwhelmed and in front of a photographer and the fine senator, wound up driving the tractor straight into Coburn's barn....

Coburn's office shared some more info on the whole ordeal. Spokesman John Hart explained, "In act of heroism, a New York Times reporter on a high performance John Deere tractor narrowly avoided colliding with Senator Coburn who was decapitating a water moccasin that was slithering toward his barn. The reporter instead grazed the Senator's barn, missing the Senator with room to spare. An armadillo meandering through the field was not so lucky, however."

RELATED: A vivid illustration of the rate of growth of the national debt over the last 100 years:

You have likely heard about the lawsuit by abortion advocates seeking to halt implementation of Oklahoma's newly enacted abortion reporting legislation, due to go into effect on November 1, 2009. Here is a news release from Oklahomans for Life debunking a number of claims made in the lawsuit:

NEW OKLAHOMA ABORTION-REPORTING LAW DESIGNED TO HELP WOMEN Abortion advocates, news accounts misrepresent law

TULSA - Abortion advocates, aided by several recent news accounts, continue to misrepresent a new Oklahoma law strengthening abortion reporting in the state. The Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act, set to go into effect on November 1, 2009, was passed by large majorities in the Oklahoma House and Senate and signed into law by Governor Brad Henry in May. It is being challenged in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

"Abortion advocates either don't understand - or else are intentionally misrepresenting - Oklahoma's new abortion-reporting law," said Tony Lauinger, state chairman of Oklahomans For Life. "It is not true, as alleged, that reports about individual women's abortions will be posted online, nor will reports about individual abortions contain personal identifying information: no name, no address, no hometown, no county of residence, no patient ID number. To say otherwise is clearly false and misleads the public."

The Center for Reproductive Rights has persistently misrepresented the Oklahoma law, claiming that it requires doctors to provide information about where women live. These assertions are absolutely false.

As written, the new law requires that a report for each abortion be sent to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The questionnaire gathers demographic information including age, race, marital status and educational level and gathers information on the method of abortion used. Numerous states have similar reporting requirements, and the abortion industry collects and publishes similar information through annual surveys by the Guttmacher Institute (formerly the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America).

The new reporting form also asks for the reason the abortion is being sought. The reasons for the abortion listed on the questionnaire are adapted from the September 2005 report, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health by the Guttmacher Institute.

Contrary to claims of abortion activists, the new law actually protects a woman's privacy more extensively than current Oklahoma law. The current reporting form asks for the woman's county of residence. The new law, however, repeals the existing law and any identifying residential information has been eliminated in the new reporting form.

Reports gathered in Oklahoma's three abortion facilities would be submitted on a monthly basis to the Department of Health which will "ensure the security" of the reports. Further, reports may be "accessed only by specially authorized departmental personnel" who will not be able to identify the woman or know in which of Oklahoma's 77 counties she lives. The Department of Health will then produce an annual statistical analysis of the demographic information. Individual abortion reports will not be published.

"It is hoped that the information gathered will make it possible in the future to address some of the underlying societal problems, such as absence of child support or lack of childcare, which lead some women to seek abortions." Lauinger noted.

Abortion complications will also be reported under the new law. Abortion advocates frequently refer to abortion as being "safe, legal, and rare." However, very little data exist regarding abortion complications. When a lawsuit is filed over a botched abortion, there is typically an out-of-court settlement, so there is very little statistical data about the extent of the damage that abortion inflicts on women.

"Abortion is the most under-regulated, under-investigated, and under-researched procedure done on American women today, yet it is the most common and most potentially dangerous to their health and well-being," noted National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., in a September 29 release. "If a state can get a handle on the reasons women have abortions, it can lead to better programs that will make it easier for women to have their children rather than resort to abortion."

"Reducing the number of abortions is a goal that even abortion advocates claim to support. This legislation could help achieve that objective by identifying the problems that lead Oklahoma women to seek abortions. Important public-health benefits will be achieved by Oklahoma's Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act," Lauinger added.

The text of the law is available here: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/HB1595_ENR.RTF.

The case is Davis v. W.A. Drew Edmondson.

Oklahomans For Life is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. The National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest pro-life group, is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide.

# # #

A computer abandoned in ACORN's Oklahoma City office contains files that indicate a close working relationship between the leftist community organization and the Oklahoma Democratic party, according to State Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. ACORN's former landlord gave the computer and files to Reynolds after the office was abandoned by ACORN last fall. A file on the computer plans to target two State Senate districts and three State House districts.

According to a story on the McCarville Report Online, the computer also contained a letter apparently from State Sen. Andrew Rice -- or at least written for his signature -- urging the U. S. Customs and Immigration Service to expedite the processing of citizenship applications.

MORE: BigGovernment.com, home to the hidden camera investigation of ACORN offices around the country, is watching the Oklahoma City ACORN story. Here is BigGovernment.com's full ACORN archive. And Andrew Griffin has more detail at Oklahoma Watchdog.

Anita MonCrief shows how ACORN's tactics look suspiciously like a protection racket.

PLANiTULSA's draft vision, developed by Fregonese Associates in response to the PLANiTULSA scenario survey, will be available after 2 p.m. today, September 15, 2009, at PLANiTULSA.org. City of Tulsa planners are seeking feedback on the draft, which is not a detailed comprehensive plan, but a first step in that direction, defining in broad terms what kind of development is desired and where. An open house on the vision and small area concepts will be held at the Greenwood Cultural Center a week from Wednesday, September 23, 2009, from 4:30 to 8 p.m., with formal presentations at 5:30 and 7.

It will be interesting to see if the draft vision emerges as an issue in the ongoing City of Tulsa elections.

Also, tonight (September 15, 2009), the Oklahoma Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting about Tulsa's place on a high-speed rail corridor tonight at 6 p.m., at the Aaronson Auditorium at Central Library in downtown Tulsa. Meanwhile, last week, ODOT began demolishing the platforms and rail yard of Oklahoma City's Union Station. Oklahoma rail activist Tom Elmore comments:

If "High Speed Rail" and an Oklahoma hub are important enough to ODOT that it would seriously apply for "2 billion federal dollars," then why isn't saving the OKC Union Station rail hub at 300 SW 7th an even greater priority? (ODOT contractors started destroying the rail yard there last week -- the "week of 9-11-09.")

ODOT's clear message? If Oklahomans are going to have advanced surface transportation, they're going to have to pay ODOT's favored contractors for it "at least twice..." (We're being forced to pay those contractors to destroy magnificent, 8-block-long OKC Union Station yard -- and we'll be forced to pay to build a new one, of predictably lower quality, if they ever actually get around to that!) ... or are they just using an "alleged interest" in High Speed Rail to cover their crimes at OKC Union Station?

Time for Oklahomans to demand answers!

If you're a candidate for city office or a staffer or volunteer for said candidate, you probably shouldn't sacrifice one of your last three Saturdays before the primary for this, but if you're looking at running in a future election or helping someone who will be running....

American Majority will hold a Candidate Training Seminar at the Tulsa Select Hotel (the old Hilton/Holiday Inn Select) at I-44 and Yale this Saturday, August 22, 2009, in the Navajo Room. Registration begins at 9 a.m., and the seminar will conclude at 5:15 p.m. The price is $40 per candidate and $20 for each additional staff or family member.

The seminar will include 1-on-1 media training and lectures by Chris Faulkner of Faulkner Strategies, a nationally renowned political consulting firm that works with candidates and organizations here in the United States and globally in such places as Indonesia, Venezuela, and Canada.

To RSVP, phone 405-605-6338 or follow this link to register online.

Monday evening I attended a reception welcoming Congressman John Sullivan back from his month at the Betty Ford Center. Sullivan checked himself into the center for rehabilitation for alcoholism. Since his return, he has made himself widely available for interviews with print and broadcast media about the impact of alcohol on his life and his reasons for dealing with the problem proactively. (See below for links.)

Sullivan has said that he sought treatment because of the effect alcohol was having on his relationships with his family, and in particular that he wanted to set a better example for his oldest son, who is now a teenager.

The event was attended by his three Oklahoma Republican colleagues in the U. S. House -- Frank Lucas, Tom Cole, and Mary Fallin, each of whom spoke briefly in appreciation of Sullivan's work in Congress.

I've heard negative comments from a number of Republicans, in person and via e-mail, suggesting that it's time for Sullivan to step aside or expressing an intention to support a primary challenge against him.

If someone has a beef with Sullivan over his vote on the bailout last fall, I can understand. It was a significant lapse for him and for Sen. Tom Coburn, and I think that time has shown that the bailout was the wrong move for our economy. But I have to weigh that against Sullivan's consistent record as the most fiscally conservative of Oklahoma's House delegation, as a solid social conservative, and as someone willing to take a stand in support of genuine and effective enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, a position that puts him at odds with the Chamber of Commerce types. While I think his record is overwhelmingly positive on balance from the conservative perspective, it's certainly a conservative voter's right to decide use the bailout vote as a litmus test, although I think that's short-sighted.

But it would be wrong to push John Sullivan out the door because he sought rehabilitation for alcoholism. If Sullivan is punished at the polls for seeking treatment, it will encourage others in public life who are dealing with a personal problem like substance dependency or marital strife to keep hiding, instead of seeking help, until the problem blows up into a huge career-ending, family-wrecking scandal. Sullivan has been open about his decision to seek help for his problem with alcohol in hopes that others who need help will find the strength to seek it out.

It's telling that, of all John Sullivan's most vocal political enemies, on the left and on the right, not one has come forward with a damaging rumor alleging scandalous behavior on his part. If something were out there, it would have surfaced on one web forum or another. As I wrote in late May, when he announced that he had admitted himself to the Betty Ford Center, "I had never seen anything in his behavior even hinting at a problem and had never even heard rumors of a problem."

Some have complained about Sullivan's being on leave during the House's vote on the "Cap and Trade" bill. The margin was wide enough that Sullivan's lone vote would not have made the difference. The Democratic leadership's last-minute substitute bill made it obvious that they would keep rewriting the bill until they persuaded enough of their own members to vote yes for something. What passed was a 300-page substitute that isn't even complete. An entire section -- the heart of the plan -- hasn't even been written, much less approved. The Senate will pass a different version (maybe -- Sen. Jim Inhofe says it's dead in the water), there will be a conference committee, all sorts of unholy, corrupt provisions will be quietly inserted into the bill by the conferees and their staffers, and then it will go back to the House and Senate for approval. There are plenty of opportunities yet to kill this thing, and once the teeth are in the bill, there will be some substance that Sullivan and others can use to convert yes voters to no voters. Sullivan will be there when it matters.

Congratulations to John on seeking help when he needed it and on his successful completion of rehab. I'm happy to have Congressman Sullivan back in Washington representing Oklahoma's 1st District.

MORE:

KTUL: Sullivan Got Sober for Family

Sullivan will tell you drinking did not hurt him that much. Even when he was drinking, he said he worked-out regularly and got his job done. It was his loved ones who paid a price.

"They wanted to do things, and I wouldn't the next day when I'm hung over or don't feel too good. I wasn't there for them either, and might be snappy with them, and tell them, 'Get outta here.' I'd argue with my wife, and I feel terrible about that. It's not the way I want to be." explained Sullivan.

For Sullivan failing his kids started with drinking when he was a teenager. He began by sharing some Coors Light with his high school buddies. He would drink on and off, binging and then giving it up for years. But abstinence was never permanent, so after breaking promises to quit he said he finally decided he had to put his family first.

KTUL: Sullivan: "People Or Things Didn't Make Me Drink"

"People or things didn't make me drink," he says. "That's not what it was. It wasn't like things were stressful. I just did. I'm an alcoholic ya know? And if I start drinking I want to drink more, not every time but eventually that does happen."

Sullivan says over time, the occasional binge evolved from light beer to vodka and a strain at home. He says he wants to make it up to his family and his constituents by turning it all into a positive.

"I'm sure some people are disappointed with me," he says. "But it's hard to apologize because I needed to get help and I did. And I wanted to come forward and do this in a way that was public because I want to help other people."

KOTV: Congressman Sullivan Discusses Time In Rehab

Sullivan said during his month long treatment he learned that he will face a long recovery, but that he can overcome it.

"I can't drink. When I drink, it goes in and I react differently than a normal person. The choice I have is to work hard, and do what I need to do, but also to not to drink the first one. It's not the tenth drink that gets me drunk. It's the first one that starts the process," said Oklahoma Congressman John Sullivan.

KOTV: Experts Say Sullivan's Battle Could Help Others

Sullivan says he appreciates all the support he's received, and pledges to remain honest about his treatment in hopes that others will choose to take the same steps he did.

"That's the reason I'm being so public about it, too. If it can help someone come forward to know that you need to get help, and you can get it. Don't be scared to do it, and you won't be judged or punished. But, come forward and do it," said Congressman John Sullivan.

(Photo above by John Tidwell, taken April 2006.)

This morning an off-duty Tulsa city planner tweeted a link to a "memorial" -- a petition seeking the impeachment of State Rep. Sally Kern. A number of the 150 or so signers commented that they consider Kern, who is, like Pres. Obama, Gov. Henry, and nearly every member of Congress and the State Legislature, an avowed opponent of same-sex marriage, an embarrassment to the state of Oklahoma.

Here's the text of the petition, which is intended to reverse the damage that the petition alleges has been caused by Kern to the state's image and reputation (emphasis added, but spelling and punctuation left as is -- consider the whole thing [sic]):

To the Honorable House of Representatives of the great State of Oklahoma

The petition of _____________________, a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, and of the United States, respectfully showeth:

That, Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, sets forth the article for impeachment and that in such article it states "The Governor and other elective state officers, including the
Justices of the Supreme Court, shall be liable and subject to
impeachment for wilful neglect of duty, corruption in office,
habitual drunkenness, incompetency, or any offense involving
moral turpitude committed while in office."

That, Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603, states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, Sally Kern has displayed to the citizens of her district and of the great State of Oklahoma incompetency while holding the office of State Representative; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, the actions, public address, legislation, views of Sally Kern have had a negative impact on recruiting and retaining businesses to the State of Oklahoma; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, Sally Kern has committed acts of moral turpitude while in office; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, Sally Kern's primary agenda is insight hate and rage towards the citizens of the State of Oklahoma; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, Sally Kern has violated the convent of the seperation between Church and State; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, Sally Kern has wasted taxpayer dollars pening legilsation that has added no value to the great State of Oklahoma; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, Sally Kern has shown support to repress the freedoms, rights, and privliges afforded to the citizens of the great State of Oklahoma by states constitution and the constitution of the Unites States of America.; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, In all of this Sally Kern has acted in a manner contrary to her trust as State Representative, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury and oppresion of the people of the State of Oklahoma.

In conclusion the memoralist says:
Having thus submitted to your honorable body the facts of his case, your petitioner begs leave to observe that it appears from those facts:

First. That said Sally Kern is no longer viewed as a representative of the people of the great State of Oklahoma.

Second. That said Sally Kern has in the view of these people displayed incompetency in her ability to perform, enact, and carry out the duties of a Representative for the State of Oklahoma.

Third. That said Sally Kern has displayed poor judgement and moral turptitude in the her actions thus far as a Representative for the State of Oklahoma.

Wherefore, and inasmuch as the said Sally Kern has violated the most sacred and undoubted rights of the inhabitants of the State of Oklahoma, your petitioner prays that the conduct and proceedings in this behalf, of said Sally Kern, may be inquired into by your honorable body, and such decision made therein to impeach, to appoint managers to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate, and to inform the Senate of these facts by resolution (Manual Sec. 607; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 9) for trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the State of Oklahoma;

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will pray.

Sincerely, We The Undersigned;

As serious as the allegations against Kern are -- violating "convents," moral "turptitude," "insights" of hate and rage, and "pening legilsation" (an act that looks awfully turptitudinous) -- someone needs to hold the authors and signers of this petition accountable for an assault on the English language. All y'all are making us look like a bunch of ignorant hicks.

BREAKING NEWS: Gov. Brad Henry has vetoed HB 2246, the initiative petition reform bill to which Rick Carpenter alludes in the essay below, despite near unanimous support from the legislature. According to an e-mail press release from Oklahomans for Responsible Government late last night, "[Henry] claims that the provision that protects petition circulators from harassment is a violation of free speech."

Rick Carpenter was one of three people indicted and handcuffed for their involvement in circulating the Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative petition.

Rick and I were primary- and middle-school classmates, and his passion for politics was evident at an early age. (There are a couple of stories I could tell....) That early passion has endured.

After the legislature failed to approve Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation, Rick led the effort to pass it by means of initiative petition. The number of required signatures combined with the short window of time to gather them makes it difficult to get a petition circulated without the help of paid circulators, particularly if your volunteer circulators are subject to harassment from members of groups that feel threatened by the petition. TABOR supporters hired a firm with previous success circulating petitions in Oklahoma. They brought in circulators from out of state, just as supporters of the ban on cockfighting had done in 2002.

But TABOR and a companion petition against eminent domain abuse were unpopular with those groups and businesses dependent on government funding and with the government officials who enjoy the power of doling that funding out. TABOR petitions were disqualified on the grounds that some of the circulators were not bona fide residents of Oklahoma. The State Supreme Court ruled against the petition but refused to hear oral arguments, and the TABOR initiative was thrown off the ballot. That would be enough of a setback, but officials went further and sought indictments of Rick Carpenter, Susan Johnson, head of the petition circulating firm, and Paul Jacob, a consultant on initiative campaigns.

The Oklahoma 3 were indicted and handcuffed in court, just for the cameras. At length, the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 1969 law, under which the Oklahoma 3 were the first to be indicted, violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the Constitution. After first announcing plans to pursue the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, Edmondson dropped the charges on January 22, 2009, the day after the 10th Circuit refused Edmondson's appeal.

Rick has written a powerful essay on his experience and its significance for democracy in Oklahoma, and with his permission, it's appearing here on BatesLine. An excerpt:

The Attorney General, his political cronies, bigwig CEOs and labor unions, the Oklahoma axis of evil, were not content to defeat these two petitions. They wanted to make people fearful to participate in the petitions process. They knew the issues were popular among voters and it was just a matter of time before another petition got on the ballot. Clearly, the opposing long-term strategy was to make examples of us so Oklahomans would think twice before asserting their free speech. They want to intimidate citizens, like me, from sponsoring future petitions and out-of-state consultants, like Paul and Susan, from daring to do business in Oklahoma.

While they would never be able to remove initiative petition rights from the Constitution, they can use the law to make life very difficult on anyone who chooses to circulate a petition that the power structure does not like. I found myself the target of an angry and vengeful government, determined to tell the people of Oklahoma, "Don't you dare come between the government and your money or property".

By filing charges and threatening us with 10 years in prison, the Attorney General knew he would cause a chilling effect on petitioning in Oklahoma. All petitions face validity questions: some people sign more than once, some people sign who are not eligible, some people sign up under a name like "Clark Kent". The verification and challenge process is supposed to weed out those occurrences. If petition proponents fear facing criminal charges at each instance, nobody will be willing to sponsor a petition. Edmondson, the corporate CEOs funding his governor's campaign and labor unions endorsing him, would maintain control of ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer money and unfettered ability to seize private property.

Following our arraignment we were all three curiously handcuffed together, I suppose to keep us all in camera frame, and "perp walked", Rudy Giuliani style, out of the courtroom before a crush of cameras and reporters. The message was clear; this is what happens to you if you dare to circulate a petition that challenges the status quo.

By now you've seen the statement, released Friday afternoon by Oklahoma 1st District Congressman John Sullivan, that on Thursday he checked himself into the Betty Ford Center for treatment to deal with his addiction to alcohol. The announcement was a surprise, as I had never seen anything in his behavior even hinting at a problem and had never even heard rumors of a problem.

I don't know what stresses are underlying his problem with alcohol, but there's a reason they call it the Betty Ford Center. Being in the public eye as an elected official or an elected official's spouse makes it much harder to deal with the trials of life. John has had two significant personal setbacks since his first run for congress: The death of his infant daughter and the loss of sight in one eye, the result of a security barrier striking a car in which he was a passenger. As hard as it is to bear up under such circumstances, it's harder when all eyes are on you, and when half of those eyes belong to people who would love to see you humiliated and driven from office.

I admire his proactive decision, and he and his family will be in our prayers.

There's been a lot of discussion about the vote in the Oklahoma House of Representatives on whether to ratify "Do You Realize??" as the official rock song of Oklahoma. The resolution received only 48 votes in favor, three short of the required majority. Gov. Brad Henry signed an executive order making the choice of the Flaming Lips tune official.

An online poll last fall picked "Do You Realize??" over nine other finalists, getting about 51% of 22,000 cast. I can't find a reference, but I seem to recall some suggestion at the time that Flaming Lips fans were stuffing the virtual ballot box. As an active band with a devoted, tech-savvy following, they're more likely to generate that kind of support than a musician prominent in an earlier era, like Hoyt Axton, Leon Russell, Wanda Jackson, or The Ventures. In my opinion, the Lips tune rocks least of the 10 songs. (The full list of finalists is here, along with a player that lets you listen to all of them.)

In March, the Flaming Lips were invited to appear at a legislative session. On that occasion, bassist Michael Ivins (any relation to Molly?) wore a red T-shirt emblazoned with a large yellow hammer and sickle, the symbol of international communism, a source of offense to many of the legislators who voted no on Thursday's resolution. It should have been a source of offense to every legislator.

Lead singer Wayne Coyne seems to think that only "small-minded" people should be offended by a hammer-and-sickle T-shirt:

"Me, I just say look, it's a little minority of some small-minded religious wackos who think they can tell people what kind of T-shirts and what kind of music they can listen to, and the smart, rational, reasonable people of Oklahoma are never going to buy into that," frontman Wayne Coyne told Tulsa World in an interview Friday.

State Rep. Corey Holland, R-Marlow, voted against the resolution. His reply to Coyne:

The great thing about this country is he has the right to make whatever statement he wants to make.... I have the right to be offended by that.

Gabriel Malor, a former Oklahoman who blogs regularly at Ace of Spades HQ, headlined his post on the controversy, "I'm Not Entirely Convinced We Shouldn't Just Lock Them In and Set the Building on Fire," referring to the legislators who voted against the resolution.

Steve Lackmeyer, writer and blogger for the Oklahoman, likens the State House vote to county government corruption. (UPDATE: Steve's comment has prompted me to look again at how I summarized his entry, and I think I oversimplified in my haste. It would be more accurate to say, "For Steve Lackmeyer, the State House vote brought to mind legislative resistance to county government reform after the corruption scandals of the 1980s." But just read his entry for yourself.)

Oklahoman editor Ed Kelley slams the legislature in a catchall video condemnation that is ignorant in multiple dimensions, and I don't say that lightly. He claims that the legislature wants to punish hardworking immigrants, implying the word illegal by his reference to "their children who are American citizens," but not using the word. (The legislature, and an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma citizens, welcome legal immigrants, but support sanctions against employers who use illegal labor and support cooperation between local law enforcement and Federal immigration authorities.) He refers to Ivins's T-shirt as bearing a "symbol of the old Communist Party, which went out of business with the old Soviet Union almost two decades ago." Hey, Ed, tell the oppressed people of China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam that the Communist Party "went out of business." Tell that to Chinese civil rights attorney Gao Zhisheng, still missing after being taken from his home by Chinese security forces on Feb. 4.

For that matter, Ed, does the fact that the Nazi Party has been "out of business" for over 60 years mean that no one should be offended by it any more? Had Ivins shown up in a red T-shirt with a white circle and a foot-wide black swastika, we wouldn't be talking about the legislature's vote. We'd be reading about venues canceling Flaming Lips tour dates, about their record sales plummeting, about denunciations by civil rights groups. It would have been a career-ending move, and rightly so.

Hey, Ed: Timothy McVeigh has been permanently out of business for about eight years now. Would it have been OK by you for Ivins to show up at the State Capitol with a McVeigh T-shirt? God help us if there's ever a day when that would be considered the latest in ironic hipster wear.

Tens of millions have been killed and billions have been enslaved in the name of Communism over the last century. Billions still suffer under its yoke.

The most disturbing aspect of this fuss is the realization of how little Americans realize the inherent inhumanity of Communism. It can be summed up in a single image, from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: "a boot, stamping on a human face -- forever."

With May Day coming up -- the traditional holiday for the international Communist movement -- it's as good a time as any to refresh our memories and educate the younger folks about those who suffered and died as a result of Communist policies -- not torture and imprisonment simply employed in the name of Communism but inherent to the Communist worldview. Look for several posts on the topic here at BatesLine this week. I hope other bloggers will join me in raising awareness of how deeply evil Communism was and still is.

MORE: Brandon Dutcher weighs in:

Now, I know nothing about Mr. Ivins. It appears that at the very least he needs some education on the matter, and indeed I suspect it goes deeper than that. My guess is that (to borrow from another band) he still hasn't found what he's looking for. In any case, for now I think it would be useful simply to juxtapose Mr. Ivins' silliness with the seriousness of the great man himself:

Click through to hear Ronald Reagan calling on the Communists to stop treating their citizens as prisoners.

Brandon also links to The Black Book of Communism, the definitive catalog of the devastation wrought by this evil philosophy:

The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards.

As the death toll mounts--as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on--the authors systematically show how and why, wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century.

When BC Lee (whom I met at the Oklahoma Republican State Convention on Saturday) said he looked forward my opining about the weekend, this is what I posted on Facebook in reply:

My opining in a nutshell: Very happy about Gary Jones winning re-election, unhappy at the defeat of the caucus proposal, even more unhappy at the tone of the debate on both sides of the issue, and perplexed that I had an easier time bending the ear of a Democratic legislator at a coffeehouse on Friday than in having a substantive conversation with any Republican legislator at the Republican convention on Saturday.

The caucus proposal was sound and well-thought-out, but it wasn't promoted well. I was very annoyed by the speech that one opponent gave -- a tall thin man with white hair, didn't catch his name or his county. His speech was filled with mischaracterizations of the proposal, and his tone communicated disrespect toward caucus supporters. But then I was so embarrassed by caucus supporter Tom Roach's overly emotional rebuttal that I walked out of the hall.

I wish in hindsight that I'd spent some time setting out the case for returning to the caucus here, but I was most concerned about getting Gary Jones reelected, and I hadn't seen all the specifics of the rules amendments.

There was another proposed rule change, coming from the Woodward County convention. The proposal seemed to add a convention in 2010 and a standing rules committee to propose changes that would be considered at that convention. The proposal did not specify which state rules were being amended or provide the new language that would go into the state rules. (The caucus proposal was very thorough in that regard.)

There were some issues (specifically State Sen. Tom Adelson's anti-SLAPP legislation) that I'd hoped to discuss with my friends in the legislature, but I didn't get the chance. The convention was an intense event, not quite as high stakes as last year, but there were a couple of big decisions to be made and a governor's race to get launched, and that may explain why people spent more time in the convention hall and less time schmoozing in the lobby, which in turn would explain why I didn't have much contact with legislators beyond a quick handshake. It didn't help that I got there at 9:10 and spent the next 40 minutes in line to register. I would have had more time to talk with people if I'd gotten there earlier. Unlike years past, I opted not to drive down the night before. The ticket price for the gala plus the cost of a hotel room was more than I wanted to pay.

Earlier I posted my Twitter feed during the convention. This link leads to my photos from the convention.

Here's Michelle Byte's commentary on the convention. She has a good summary of the caucus debate. She also reveals why she banned John Wiliams, husband of state chairman candidate and former vice chairman Cheryl Williams, from the GetRightOK forum. John Williams was engaged in a bit of sockpuppetry on the forum and inadvertently gave himself away. (I can't look at that photo without thinking, "How about a nice Hawaiian Punch?")

I wholeheartedly agree with these comments:

There is one elected official, however, that stands above the rest. One who is willing to pitch in and help, and doesn't think of herself as above doing work. That person is Corporation Commissioner Dana Murphy. What a wonderful lady! She worked with us in registration getting people's name badges for them on Friday night, and then on Saturday helping to control the line and again fetching name badges. I don't think you would see many any other elected officials serving others in that way. In fact, I didn't. So, Dana Murphy is awesome....

I wasn't able to see any of the speakers in the morning, but I did see Randy Brogdon's speech on youtube. It was excellent!...

I LOVED John Wright. He was a great convention chair and he made it fun.

The Oklahoma House voted Tuesday to prohibit state government funding for the destruction of embryos for the purpose of stem cell research in the state. (The legislation does nothing to hinder the many other forms of stem cell research -- marrow, cord blood, various forms of adult tissue -- which do not require the destruction of a human life.)

SB 315 passed by a wide bipartisan majority of 85-13. The version passed by the House now goes back to the Senate for final approval. If a business is involved in "nontherapeutic research that destroys a human embryo or subjects a human embryo to substantial risk of injury or death," that business does not qualify for any Oklahoma income tax credits or incentive payments. The bill prevents tax dollars from directly or indirectly funding the destruction of human life.

The 13 naysayers were Auffet, Brown, Cox, Hoskin, Kiesel, McAffrey, McDaniel (Jeannie), Nations, Renegar, Roan, Scott, Shelton, and Smithson. Christian, McPeak, and Morrissette were excused from the vote. Everyone else voted yes.

The Tulsa Metro Chamber and the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce have been lobbying Gov. Brad Henry to veto any such legislation when it reaches him. In response, pro-life legislators boycotted a legislative event hosted by the two chambers.

State Rep. Pam Peterson (R-Tulsa) said today, "The idea that Oklahoma should condone the destruction of innocent human life in the name of 'economic development' is indefensible. Our law clearly states that human life begins at conception. Now the chambers are advocating the destruction of a legally recognized life in exchange for research dollars, saying the state should determine the best use of a person's life for the state's purposes. That's a huge paradigm shift that runs contrary to the basic values of our nation."

I'm happy that pro-life legislators are voicing their objections to the Chambers' crass and callous stand on this issue.

But if you're a Chamber member, and you oppose the destruction of innocent human life for the sake of economic development, you need to take a stand, too. You need to e-mail Gov. Henry, tell him to sign the bill, and tell him that your Chamber of Commerce doesn't speak for you on this issue.

Then you need to make some calls and do some legwork to find out who authorized your Chamber to speak on this issue. Find out when the board voted on it, which board members voted which way, then make your displeasure known to the executive director (Mike Neal here in Tulsa) and the pro-killing members of the board.

Finally, the pro-life majority on the Tulsa City Council should refuse to continue to give millions in city tax dollars to an organization that advocates using tax dollars to kill people for profit. The Council has the power to end the City's exclusive deal with the Tulsa Metro Chamber for economic development and convention and tourism promotion. Put the contract up for bids in a full and open competition and use our City hotel tax dollars to hire a more competent outfit -- that needed to happen anyway.

Here is the full statement from Rep. Pam Peterson (R-Tulsa):

OKLAHOMA CITY - The Oklahoma City and Tulsa chambers of commerce support for embryonic stem cell research, which requires the killing of human embryos, will damage Oklahoma 's reputation as a state that values life, state Rep. Pam Peterson said today.

"The chambers' support of embryonic stem cell research as an 'economic growth' tool is a shocking violation of the public trust and basic moral values," said Peterson, R-Tulsa. "The chamber is effectively advocating the worst kind of discrimination based on age, size and place of residence."

In the past week, both chambers have urged Gov. Brad Henry to veto legislation that would make embryonic stem cell research illegal in Oklahoma . Both groups argue the ban will hinder economic development, be an embarrassment for the state and make it hard to attract "researchers."

"The idea that Oklahoma should condone the destruction of innocent human life in the name of 'economic development' is indefensible," Peterson said. "Our law clearly states that human life begins at conception. Now the chambers are advocating the destruction of a legally recognized life in exchange for research dollars, saying the state should determine the best use of a person's life for the state's purposes. That's a huge paradigm shift that runs contrary to the basic values of our nation."

The ban was supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the state House and Senate.

Even as they have worked to outlaw embryonic stem cell research, state lawmakers have also voted to provide millions for adult stem cell research. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Adult stem cell research also has a proven track record of results - there are more than 70 research treatments that use adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research has been plagued with failure.

"If the chambers were serious about economic development and growing Oklahoma 's biotech industries, they would only support research with a proven track record requiring no moral compromise - our adult stem cell plan," Peterson said. "It's clear that these organizations care more about catering favor from radical groups than improving our economy."

As a result of the chamber's call for vetoing the embryonic stem cell ban, Peterson and other pro-life lawmakers will not attend a legislative event tonight jointly hosted by the Oklahoma City and Tulsa chambers.

MORE: HB 1326, which has similar language, was passed by large majorities in both houses last week (82-6 in the House, 38-9 in the Senate) and is on the governor's desk. This morning, State Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso) called on pro-life business owners to express their support of this legislation:

State Senator Randy Brogdon called on the Pro-Life members of the Tulsa and Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce to join with him in support of HB 1326, which outlaws embryonic stem cell research.

"It's simple," said Brogdon. "HB 1326 says that we won't let Oklahoma businesses profit from the destruction of human life."

Brogdon, a co-author of HB 1326, continued, "And it's a travesty that the Oklahoma City and Tulsa Chamber leadership are more concerned about profit than the protection of human life."

"And I'm sure if the Pro-Life members of the Tulsa and Oklahoma City Chamber knew what HB 1326 entailed, they would not be happy knowing that their leadership was lobbying for Governor Henry to veto this bill," said Brogdon.

"That's why I am calling on the Pro-Life business owners of the Tulsa and Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce to join with me in support of this bill and call on their leadership to halt their lobbying against this Pro-Life legislation," said Brogdon.

Tomorrow is the 2009 Oklahoma Republican Convention in Oklahoma City. It should be an exciting day. We'll be voting on whether to re-elect as chairman a proven servant-leader, Gary Jones, and we'll be hearing from some of the folks who want to carry the GOP banner for governor next year, including State Sen. Randy Brogdon, who is expected to make his formal announcement tomorrow.

While I don't plan to tote my laptop around, I will be able to post brief updates to the BatesLine Twitter account. You can also see my latest five tweets near the top of the right-hand column on the BatesLine homepage. Several other folks plan to Twitter about the convention as well, and the consensus is that we'll tag tweets about the convention with #okgop. Follow that link, and you'll see the latest bulletins from the Oklahoma Republican Convention.

UPDATE: My #okgop tweets:

(To clarify one of the entries below -- not all anti-caucus speakers were rabble-rousers, but a couple -- people I didn't recognize -- were, and their tone was unhelpful to the debate. Chairman Gary Jones spoke against the caucus, but he did so respectfully, although I disagree with his position. I didn't hear Tom Coburn's speech, in which he opposed the caucus, but I assume he too was respectful in opposition.)

1. Greg Hill: Caucus gives voters incentive to participate in caucus & convention process #okgop
   3:09 PM Apr 18th from txt
2. Disappointed in anti-caucus rabblerousers - disingenuous and insulting #okgop
   3:05 PM Apr 18th from txt
3. Excellent point from Tom Roach - pres cmpgns will drive people to caucuses, build grssrts rolls #okgop
   2:59 PM Apr 18th from txt
4. LaPlante vice chair by acclamation #okgop
   12:48 PM Apr 18th from txt
5. Williams did not submit nomination for vice chair - ruled out of order #okgop
   12:47 PM Apr 18th from txt
6. Anthony Platt, Tulsa Co Ron Paul backer, wants Williams to stay as vice chairman #okgop
   12:47 PM Apr 18th from txt
7. Jones 1282.4 Williams 461.6 #okgop
   12:45 PM Apr 18th from txt
8. Alfalfa Coal Roger Mills Kiowa Choctaw Johnston Okmulgee Ottawa Pushmataha not here #okgop
   12:43 PM Apr 18th from txt
9. Corrected Tulsa Co Jones 104-59 #okgop
   12:41 PM Apr 18th from txt
10. Split leaning Jones Canadian 32-27 Wagoner 11-7 #okgop
    12:36 PM Apr 18th from txt
11. Logan Cty Jones 14-11 #okgop
    12:35 PM Apr 18th from txt
12. Split delegations Creek Rogers Cherokee #okgop
    12:33 PM Apr 18th from txt
13. Okla Cty Jones 141-64 #okgop
    12:33 PM Apr 18th from txt
14. Cleveland co Jones 66-40 #okgop
    12:32 PM Apr 18th from txt
15. Williams best counties LeFlore Texas Hughes
    12:31 PM Apr 18th from txt
16. Jones winning rural counties almost unanimously #okgop
    12:26 PM Apr 18th from txt
17. Tulsa Co prelim count Jones 103 Williams 59 #okgop
    12:22 PM Apr 18th from txt
18. Fran Moghaddam loves Cheryl Williams! #okgop
    12:03 PM Apr 18th from txt
19. Jones big standing O - Williams maybe 20% #okgop
    12:03 PM Apr 18th from txt
20. Corrected total 1208 delegates. #okgop
    11:48 AM Apr 18th from txt
21. Official count: 1197 delegates! #okgop
    11:09 AM Apr 18th from txt
22. Reese for Labor Comm: priority to open up Labor Dept for public scrutiny - well received #okgop
    10:33 AM Apr 18th from txt
23. Brogdon 2/3 standing O on finishing + loud chanting & cheering #okgop
    10:31 AM Apr 18th from txt
24. Brogdon intro stdg O from about 1/3 of crowd. #okgop
    10:21 AM Apr 18th from txt
25. Coffee gets warm standing O #okgop
    10:20 AM Apr 18th from txt
26. Anthony: We're supposed to follow the law and listen to the evidence. #okgop
    10:14 AM Apr 18th from txt
27. Anthony: I've been opposed by metro dailies - we're not supposed to listen to the bosses. #okgop
    10:14 AM Apr 18th from txt
28. Bob Anthony cites Dana as example of what grass roots can do. #okgop
    10:12 AM Apr 18th from txt
29. Dana Murphy - thx to delegates for helping her overcome money and millionaires in Corp Comm race #okgop
    10:06 AM Apr 18th from txt
30. finally in the convention hall - fallin speaking #okgop
    9:54 AM Apr 18th from txt
31. Had to park 3 blocks away #okgop
    9:07 AM Apr 18th from txt
32. Headed to #okgop - last outpost of civilization #QT in rear view mirror
    7:22 AM Apr 18th from txt

I didn't make it to any of the Tulsa Tea Parties. I had a quick lunch so I could get home in time to have a nice dinner out with my wife on her birthday -- just the two of us. (We went to Bangkok at 33rd and Harvard. It's a Thai buffet. Wonderful, spicy, tasty food and a wide variety of choices. No MSG, everything is clearly labeled, they put small portions of each dish out at a time so it stays fresh.)

Here are reports from the various Tea Parties around Oklahoma, Tulsa first and in chronological order:

Chris Medlock on the 11-1 downtown event with talk radio host John Gibson (with photos):

Reasonable estimates for the event place the peak attendance at between 750 to 1000.

Chris has also posted a Washington Post graphic that explains at a glance why Obama's budget has engendered so much more grassroots unrest than Bush's budgets.

KFAQ's website has photos of the downtown event. Bland Bridenstine has more photos here, including photos of the 5 - 7 pm event at Veterans Park.

The Tulsa Tea Party blog has a thorough report with photos.

Joe Kelley on the 12-2 LaFortune Park event with Congressman John Sullivan (with video):

The Tulsa Police put the crowd size at 3200 and a petition that was passed gathered in excess of 3000 signatures.

Joe Kelley has also posted some helpful links about the Tea Party movement and resources for taking further constructive action, including the After the Tea Party website.

Here's Jenn Sierra's report and photos of the Veterans' Park event.

Muskogee Politico says there were 220 at that city's event (video and photos to come).

Tyson Wynn has audio of the Claremore rally (and explains the cool way he was able to post it live using his iPhone).

The Red Dirt Reporter was at the State Capitol for the Oklahoma City event:

Well over 5,000 people crowded onto the south plaza of the Oklahoma State Capitol Wednesday, taking part in the Tax Day Tea Party movement that has swept America, with 2,500 Tea Parties reportedly taking place nationwide.

This grassroots gathering was amazing in that it drew people from all walks of life and political backgrounds. All agreed that the federal government has taken things too far in regards to taxing the American people and bailing out Wall Street and the banks.

NewsOK.com has video and photos and quotes an Oklahoma Highway Patrol estimate of between 4,000 and 5,000. (Via dustbury.com.)

Kick the Anthill has more photos of the Oklahoma City event. Videos are here on the OKC Tea Party website.

RELATED: Randy Brogdon, who may have been the only prospective candidate for Governor at any of the Tea Parties, succeeded in raising $15,000 in a single day today for his exploratory committee.

MORE: CNN reporter Susan Roesgen drops any pretense of objectivity in her coverage of the Chicago Tea Party. Michelle Malkin compares Roesgen's reporting today to Roesgen's coverage of an anti-Bush rally.

And to those who claim that Tea Party-goers are just out to attack Democrats, Michelle Malkin reports that the Sacramento Tea Party organizer acknowledged the California GOP chairman, who was present at the event, then denounced him for "waffling on massive tax hike ballot measures."

Will this make the MSM coverage? It doesn't fit the narrative. But it's yet another demonstration that this movement is not partisan and equal opportunity when it comes to holding politicians' feet to the fire for fiscal irresponsibility and fecklessness.

Of recent note in local blogs:

At Choice Remarks, Brandon Dutcher salutes State Rep. Jabar Shumate (D-Tulsa) for his efforts to expand school choice with a bill that will allow tribal governments to sponsor charter schools.

Tulsa Chigger has posted a 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon lampooning the New Deal, headlined "Planned Economy or Planned Destruction." In the corner of the cartoon, a Trotsky-esque fellow writes a placard: "Spend! Spend! Spend under the guise of recovery -- bust the government -- blame the capitalists for the failure -- junk the constitution and declare a dictatorship." Chigger writes, "Strangely similar to our situation now, isn't it?"

Chris Medlock writes about State Sen. Randy Brogdon's upcoming announcement as a candidate for governor and the impact of a Scott Pruitt candidacy on the race.

Owasso blogger James Parsons wonders about the conservative credentials of another GOP gubernatorial possibility, former Congressman J. C. Watts, who has spent the last seven years as a corporate lobbyist.

Yogi gets quote of the week honors: "I love little 'creases' in time and space." Me, too. He's referring to unexpected places like an Italian mining community in southeastern Oklahoma named Krebs that boasts legendary Italian food. Yogi recounts a recent visit to Pete's Place -- it's been too long since my last meal there.

OKDad is working on a mystery: A statue of a farmer, erected for the American Bicentennial in 1976 and currently under restoration, turns out not to be a bronze after all, but "some sort of hardened concrete-plaster hybrid." "He was planned as a bronze. Molds of him were made in preparation for a bronze. Funds were apparently raised for him to be cast in bronze. The papers from July 4, 1976 (the day he was dedicated and unveiled) clearly state he is a statue of bronze stature. So, where's the bronze?" The mystery is still unsolved, but here's the latest development.

Rod Dreher has posted an 1999 article by Russell Hittinger about how a Benedictine monastery came to be established in Cherokee County. (Driving directions on the monastery website include prayers to St. Jude and St. Benedict in the event of high water. Irritated Tulsan might advise prayers if you decide to follow the restaurant recommendation on the same page -- I've eaten at said restaurant three times and never had a problem.)

Irritated Tulsan's Tulsa Tuesday post last week on The Lost Ogle: Tulsa's Worst Remodels, including a Pizza Hut turned adult novelty and lingerie shop, a Wal-Mart-to-church conversion and a KFC (complete with bucket on the sign) turned chiropractor's office. (I wonder if you can still get a chicken wing there -- either the food kind or the wrestling kind.)

Down the turnpike:

Steve Lackmeyer has posted a series of videos featuring urban planner Jeff Speck's comments on downtown Oklahoma City. The latest segment hits a harsh reality in Speck's comments: When you optimize a street for moving cars at high speeds, you inherently make it hazardous for pedestrians. Here are the three earlier entries in the series:

Jeff Speck Video No. 1 on urban parking
Jeff Speck Video No. 2 on giving people what they want
Jeff Speck Video No. 3 -- outlook for downtown

JenX67 has a gorgeous photo of nightfall in OKC's Plaza District.

Nick Roberts has an interesting chart showing Oklahoma City's population by decade since its founding. Noting the massive growth the city experienced in the 1920s and 1950s, he wonders whether, despite great rankings in a variety of categories, OKC will ever again be a place to which people flock.

Finally, congrats to Blair Humphreys and the MIT design team for their victory in the 2009 Urban Land Institute design competition. The design is for a transit-oriented development to replace big-box and strip-mall retail in Denver.

No time to analyze or comment, but you need to be aware of Red Dirt Report's series on Adair County and a discord on the county commission, centering on Republican newcomer Russell Turner and his efforts to ensure that the county fulfills its functions in accordance with state law. So far three stories have been published. They involve allegations of arson and intimidation, questionable handling of road funds, and county paving of non-governmental roads.

RDR: Adair County Blues - Part 1 in a series

RDR: Adair County Blues - Part 2 in a series

RDR: Rep. Auffet says folks are frustrated by dispute in Adair County

Andrew Griffin is doing some very thorough reporting. Keep an eye on Red Dirt Report for future installments.

Last September, the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce won approval under that city's downtown design guidelines for a new headquarters building at 4th and Gaylord, where Gaylord jogs left to connect to Broadway. Approval was controversial, because of the suburban site plan -- the building sits back from the street, and a good deal of the site is devoted to surface parking. An opportunity was missed to reverse an urban design mistake from the '60s and restore a street grid that would make pedestrian movement through the area easier than it is today: Six-lane Gaylord acts as a barrier between the downtown core and the Flatiron District.

The project is not yet under construction, and one quiet critic of the plan, Blair Humphreys, is now speaking up in hopes of urging a rethink of the plan. Back before the project came before the Downtown Design Review Board, Humphreys wrote a critique of the plan, but decided to keep it under wraps:

At the time, the proposal was still weeks away from initial urban design review and I hoped to contribute to the dialogue, or more accurately, initiate a dialogue about the proposal and the constraints placed on the project by the flawed planning of the I.M. Pei Plan. But then, after receiving advice that it would damage my future job prospects in OKC, I chose to stay silent.

Humphreys is studying urban planning at MIT. I started to write that it's stunning to think that someone with his name and education could hurt his job prospects by uttering some constructive criticism, but it really isn't. Although OKC has been more forward-thinking in its urban policy than Tulsa, its social structure is not that different from Tulsa's. Telling the emperor that his clothes are somewhat transparent, even if it's said in the most polite way, is never appreciated by the emperor.

His decision to remain silent gnawed at him:

It is a tough deal because I love Oklahoma City. I have always dreamed of helping to shape the future of the city and want to make it great - that is why I left development to pursue a career in planning. As a student of history I appreciate and respect the vital role the Chamber has played - and continues to play - in Oklahoma City's rise from train depot, to State Capitol, to Big League City. However, I have never felt right about the way I stayed quiet on this issue. From now on, I will not back down from contributing my thoughts on contentious issues, but I will try to do so in the most respectful manner possible.

In a later entry, he posts his critique of the Chamber's proposal.

One of my frustrations over the last decade or so of active involvement in local issues is how many Tulsans, active in community affairs, will tell me their concerns or objections to some public plan privately but don't dare speak out publicly. To speak up might alienate a potential compliant, might cost their non-profit a major donation, might get them ostracized from their social circle. (I wrote about this frustration at length last June.)

I can understand their reluctance. Criticizing the plans of the powerful doesn't earn you praise, position, or riches.

But being willing to speak has its rewards as well as its costs. You give others who share your opinion the reassurance that they aren't alone, which may give them the courage to speak up, too. If you're a well-trained urbanist like Blair Humphreys, your words can give laypeople a vocabulary for expressing their gut feelings about neighborhoods and buildings and places. Eventually, you may have the satisfaction of seeing your ideas become the conventional wisdom.

You can't shape the public debate unless you're willing to debate publicly.

Because of the road conditions, Tulsa County Republican Chairman Joy Mohorovicic has waived the requirement for Republicans to attend their precinct meeting tonight in order to become delegates to the county convention. Tulsa County registered Republican voters will be able to sign up for the county convention online at tulsagop.org.

Precinct chairmen have the option of holding the precinct meeting tonight as planned, meeting on another night, or participating in a central precinct meeting next Tuesday night, February 3, at 7 pm, at the county HQ, 5840 South Memorial, Suite 333.

The GOP HQ is likely to be closed today. Any queries should go by e-mail to chairman AT tulsagop DOT org.

As if the pride of Oklahoma weren't sufficiently wounded:

Oklahoma's junior senator in Washington soon will be belting out a rendition of the Elton John hit "Rocket Man" after losing a bet with a colleague from Florida.

Sen. Tom Coburn and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson placed a wager on Thursday's night's BCS National Championship game between the Oklahoma Sooners and Florida Gators.

Since Florida won, Coburn agreed to sing the song during Nelson's next constituent coffee, a traditional weekly meeting between a senator and residents of his home state.

Had Oklahoma won, Nelson would have had to sing "Oklahoma!" during Coburn's next constituent meeting.

"Rocket Man" was selected because Nelson was an astronaut who traveled into space in 1986 aboard the shuttle Columbia.

Although Coburn's daughter, Sarah, is a well-known opera soprano, Coburn himself "doesn't profess to have a tremendous singing gift," his spokesman, John Hart, said Friday.

Hart said no date has been set for Coburn to make good on his bet.

"He's a man of his word," Hart said. "And I'm sure Senator Nelson won't let him forget."

You don't have to be a singer to perform "Rocket Man," as William Shatner proved in this unforgettable performance at the 1978 Science Fiction Film Awards (introduced by Bernie Taupin, the song's co-writer):

Maybe Dr. No should have just bet some Oklahoma steaks against some Florida oranges.

Earlier today Sen. Tom Coburn spoke to a blogger conference call in connection with the release of his 2008: Worst Waste of the Year" report. It was a wide-ranging, on-the-record discussion. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a good synopsis.

Toward the end of the call, Dan Riehl asked about getting Coburn more allies for his efforts. Coburn said that, "We need a different farm team, and I'm working hard on that." He didn't offer any specifics, but he said that we need to "recruit people who get it, not just people who say they get it." He said that we need to elect officials who will be willing to sacrifice position for principle and asked, "How do you call people to service?"

I'm happy to see that Coburn is focusing on this challenge. Our primary safeguard against excessive and unconstitutional spending are the people who make the decisions about spending. But I wonder if it's possible for us to create the kind of "farm team" Coburn wants. To elect a principled fiscal conservative to office, you have to fight against two powerful forces -- entrenched special interests that want access to public money, aided by their allies who run the mainstream media, and a voting public with a low level of understanding about economics, the proper role of government in general and the proper roles of each level of government.

There is this idea that every problem is one that government can fix. Voters want to believe it because it relieves them of personal responsibility. Politicians are happy to promote the idea because they then get credit for doling out the goodies to favored groups and businesses, and that translates to longevity in office and a golden parachute in the form of a lobbying job with the favored groups and businesses they helped while in office.

Here in Oklahoma, at least, we have enough voters who don't buy into that idea that we can elect principled officials like Tom Coburn, Randy Brogdon, Dana Murphy, Pam Peterson, and John Eagleton (to name just a few among many). But even here, good men and women get blocked from climbing the political ladder by a hostile media and a well-financed opposition.

Recruiting good men and women is only half the battle. You need to give them the financial and logistical support they need to get elected and to advance their legislative agenda once in office.

Why are the Oklahoma Senate Republicans putting their caucus's lone HB 1804 opponent, an outspoken opponent of enforcing immigration laws, in charge of the Business and Labor Committee?

Catching up with links -- I had two pieces in last week's Urban Tulsa Weekly.

My Cityscope column dealt with E-Tickets -- why the Tulsa Police Department needs the electronic citation system advocated by Councilor John Eagleton, and what's the hold up to getting it funded.

Here are some earlier stories about E-Tickets:

• August 1, 2007: Councilor Crusade by Brian Ervin
• September 26, 2007: Safer Streets with E-Tickets? by Brian Ervin
• January 16, 2008: Somebody Should Be Cited by Brian Ervin (on the mysterious cancellation of the bid request for the system
• November 5, 2008: News Updates, which mentions the Council's October 30 decision not to fund E-Tickets from the 2006 Third Penny fund.

Also in last week's issue was a feature story with my post-election analysis, covering the Tulsa County Commission District 2 race, the Republican successes in the State Legislature and Corporation Commission, and the re-election of Sen. Jim Inhofe (while noting the strange undervote in the U. S. Senate race) and Congressman John Sullivan. I took a look at the swath of counties, stretching from Pennsylvania to Oklahoma, that gave more votes to the Republican presidential nominee this year than in 2004, and noted the connection to the lands of Ulster-Americans, aka the Scotch-Irish. I closed by suggesting that Republicans may want to adapt the British Conservative Party's Campaign North, their successful effort to rebuild their party in the north of England, where they had been nearly wiped out by the Labour Party.

A few links related to that last point:

• January 2007 memo from Francis Maude to Conservative MPs describing the creation of Campaign North


• Guardian story on the formation of Campaign North


• Videos about the campaign centers in the North East, the North West, and Yorkshire.

People ask me how they should vote tomorrow. Here's the short version:

Vote for all the REPUBLICANS.
Vote FOR all the State Questions.
Vote AGAINST all the judges.

On the street tax, I plan to vote FOR the sales tax extension (Prop. 1) and AGAINST the general obligation bond issue (Prop. 2). The sales tax extension includes money (not as much as I'd like) for paving, and the sales tax allows some flexibility, so that the City Council could (via the Brown Ordinance process) move some non-street projects to a later time while moving paving earlier. This approach also avoids raising overall tax rates and leaves the door open to implement the Yazel plan to reduce the dedicated property taxes for overfunded agencies and make that money available for more immediate public purposes.

Some links to my columns on the candidates and ballot items:

My debate with Elaine Dodd, in which we discuss the races for President, U. S. Senate, the 1st Congressional District, the County Commission race, and the Senate District 27 race (I'm supporting McCain, Inhofe, Sullivan, Bell, and Newberry, respectively.)
Dana Murphy for Corporation Commissioner.
Sally Bell for Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2.
State questions and judicial retention ballot
Street tax (October 15)
Street tax (October 29)

Scroll down the home page for more commentary on the election.

Here's some information about voting, with links to the Tulsa County Election Board website, a precinct locator, sample ballots, and how to do early voting (you have until 6 p.m. Monday for that).

Here's the League of Women Voters Tulsa website, with links to voting information and (in PDF format) their voter's guide to the candidates and ballot issues.

Here's the Oklahomans for Life website and their compilation of candidate responses to their survey.

Here's the Oklahoma Family Policy Council website and their compilation of candidate responses to their survey.

All you folks who have been asking me about the state questions and the judicial retention ballot -- here you go. My extra piece in this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly is about Oklahoma's four state questions and retention votes for some of our supreme court and appeals court judges. In a nutshell, vote yes on all the state questions, and vote no on all the judges, particularly Civil Appeals Court Judge Jane Wiseman.

The Cityscope column proper is about the City of Tulsa street tax again, with a summary of the responses I received from the Tulsa Public Works Department, a summary of the case the Papa Bear proponents are making against the Mama Bear plan, and how County Assessor Ken Yazel's proposal fits in with all this.

New city reporter Brandon Honig debuts in the current issue, with a solid story about the Tulsa Development Authority and its problems with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. And Natasha Ball has a lovely story about the Remingtons, a couple who adopted a family of five siblings early this year.

Later, I'll add links to this entry to background info on the judges and state questions. But this'll have to do for now.

This week in Urban Tulsa Weekly, I return to the topic of the November 4 City of Tulsa street sales tax and bond issue vote, raising some questions I hope can be convincingly answered between now and election day.

In an extra op-ed, I explain why voters of all political orientations should choose the eminently qualified Dana Murphy for the two-year term seat on the Corporation Commission over appointed incumbent Jim Roth, whose personal connections and campaign finances indicate a far-too-cozy relationship with Chesapeake Energy, one of the businesses he regulates. For good measure, here's my editorial endorsing Dana Murphy in the Republican primary.

Until recently, Democratic 1st District Congressional nominee Georgianna Oliver proudly boasted the endorsement of ACORN, the left-wing organization in the news recently in connection with fraudulent voter registration activities in numerous swing states. It was the top of her "professional endorsements" page. Mad Okie noticed that that endorsement had vanished for some reason, but he was able to capture a screenshot from Google's cache. He was also able to capture the PDF directly from the website before it was removed from the oliverforcongress.com website, a brief, unsigned and undated memo on ACORN VOTES letterhead from Patricia Walker, "North Tulsa Chapter Chairperson, ACORN Votes." The PDF file has a creation date of September 16.

The Red Dirt Report recently received an exclusive peek at an abandoned ACORN office in southern Oklahoma City:

Left hurriedly and in a shambles, the small office, coated in a layer of plaster dust, still housed computers, documents, registration forms, I-9 employment info and boxes with an IRS return address and others with a return address for an ACORN office in New Orleans.

The person working at this office, Adam Carter, had reportedly skipped town in June, according to the landlord. and in August, an ACORN representative from Tulsa came down and took more items, leaving behind what was found by Red Dirt Report. ACORN never fulfilled it's year lease for the property and never paid a dime in rent. The landlord told Red Dirt Report that the ACORN workers seemed to attract trouble and that there was something not quite right about what they were doing. The landlord also said that the aforementioned Tulsa ACORN worker, named "Brittany," said ACORN didn't have any money to pay for the rent and that Carter had depleted the South Oklahoma City ACORN account....

In fact, the evidence discovered in the abandoned office on South Robinson revealed maps of Oklahoma City broken down in House districts. Districts where a Republican won, but just barely, were highlighted. Papers related to the 2006 election results for Oklahoma were also noted.

Oklahoma City radio station KTOK reported Thursday on ACORN's brief tenure in Oklahoma City, where they attempted to get taxpayer funding for their activities:

The city received a request for the HUD money from a Matthew Eaton who represented ACORN. Internet searches reveal a Matt Eaton is the South West Development Coordinator for ACORN who described himself as an experienced grant writer and resource development coordinator. He also claimed to be 'well versed in various forms of fund raising. "I aspire to help raise enough money so ACORN offices in the Southwest will be able to establish Tax Access and Benefit Centers in each of its neighborhood locations and to register 300,000 new voters," wrote Eaton in a website description of himself and his goals.

But less than a year after asking for the HUD money,Eaton and the ACORN office in Oklahoma City were history. The city denied the funding request and other neighborhood agencies indicated they too had similar 'empty' relationships with ACORN. A spokeswoman of one such group said when they asked an ACORN official about the group's funding, they were told it could not be discussed.

(Via Green Country Values.)

MORE: In 2007, ACORN was found to have submitted more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations in King Co., Washington.

RottenACORN.com has a list and map of fraud prosecutions involving ACORN. They seem to be fond of swing states.

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit provides a "complete guide to ACORN voter fraud" on Pajamas Media.

At a campaign stop in Ohio, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called for the Obama-Biden campaign to disclose all communications between that campaign and ACORN. Hoft notes:

Barack Obama worked as a former trainer with the scandal-plagued ACORN organization. He also has a long history with the Far Left group and the group has canvassed for him this year. He represented ACORN in court. And, Obama donated $800,000 to the radical group just this year for their get out the vote efforts.

Earlier this week Palin told Obama to rein in this group of radical supporters.

In response, the Obama campaign is trying to pressure the FBI into dropping its investigation into voter fraud. The McCain campaign has fired back:

After a week of shifting stories and clumsy corrections regarding Barack Obama's connections to ACORN, the Obama campaign resorted to their now-customary heavy handed tactic of attempting to criminalize political discourse. Today's outrageous letter to Attorney General Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Dannehy at the Justice Department asking for a special prosecutor to investigate Senator McCain and Governor Palin's public statements about ACORN's record of fraudulent voter registrations (including in this week's Presidential debate) is absurd. It is a typical time-worn Washington attempt to criminalize political differences. For someone who promises 'change,' it is certainly only more of the same.

The letter's request that the Department of Justice investigate 'recent partisan Republican activities throughout the country' is almost a parody of the Obama campaign's attempt to intimidate their political opponents. In case Sen. Obama's lawyer did not notice, we are in the midst of a political campaign, not a coronation, and the alleged criminal activity he calls 'recent partisan Republican activities' are what the rest of us call campaign speeches and debates. All of this is unfortunately reminiscent of the Obama campaign's recent creation of a 'truth squad' of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs to 'target' people who criticize Sen. Obama. Rest assured that, despite these threats, the McCain-Palin campaign will continue to address the serious issue of voter registration fraud by ACORN and other partisan groups, and compliance by states with the Help America Vote Act's requirement of matching new voter registrations with state data bases to prevent voter fraud.

Today at 5 p.m. is the deadline for Oklahoma residents to register to vote for the November 4 general election. While the election board will accept registration forms by mail that have been postmarked by today, the safest way to be sure that you will get to vote on November 4 is to go to your county election board and register in person before 5 p.m.

The Tulsa County Election Board is located at 555 N. Denver Ave., Tulsa, OK 74103. The phone number is 918-596-5780.

The Oklahoma State Election Board website has a complete list of county election boards, with the phone number, address, and hours of operation for each. Please note that election boards in some rural counties close as early as 1:30 p.m.

UPDATE: Tulsa County Election Board will stay open until midnight tonight to accept last-minute registrations.

Here's the video of KJRH's debate between U. S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and his challenger State Sen. Andrew Rice, from last night. Russ McCaskey moderated with Joe Kelley of KRMG, Wayne Greene of the Tulsa World, and Karen Larsen of KJRH on the panel.

Oklahomans for Life, the organization that advocates at the State Capitol for the sanctity of human life, has published the responses to its survey of candidates for the November 4 general election in the October 2008 issue of its newsletter. There are separate surveys for federal and state candidates; both surveys ask about concrete policies and bills that are likely to come before Congress and the Oklahoma Legislature. Topics include abortion and abortion funding, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. The federal survey includes a couple of questions about rationing of federally-funded medical care:

10) Some hospitals have implemented formal policies authorizing denial of lifesaving medical treatment against the will of a patient or the patient's family if an ethics committee thinks the patient's quality of life is unacceptable, even though the patient and family disagree. The federal Patient Self-Determination Act currently requires health care facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid to ask patients on admission whether they have an advance directive indicating their desire to receive or refuse lifesaving treatment under certain circumstances. Would you support preventing involuntary denial of lifesaving medical treatment by amending the Patient Self-Determination Act to provide that if failure to comply with a patient's or surrogate's choice for life-saving treatment would in reasonable medical judgment be likely to result in or hasten the patient's death, a health care provider unwilling to respect the choice for life-saving treatment must allow the patient to be transferred to a willing provider and must provide the treatment pending transfer?

11) Would you vote against any bill that imposes price controls or otherwise limits the right of older Americans who choose to do so to add their own funds on top of the government contribution in order to obtain Medicare health insurance that is less likely to ration medical treatment and prescription drugs?

The same issue of the newsletter includes a response by OfL director Tony Lauinger to Jerry Riley, husband of State Sen. Nancy Riley (D-SD37), who took exception to OfL's characterization of Sen. Riley's voting record. Lauinger points out that the votes a legislator casts trumps the position a legislator claims, and Nancy Riley's two no votes on SB 714 in 2007 made the difference in the legislature's attempt to override Gov . Brad Henry's veto. Lauinger reminds that Sen. Riley's votes on SB 714 contradicted her responses to the Oklahomans for Life survey in 2000 and 2004 (as a Republican candidate for State Senate) and in 2006 (as a Republican candidate for Lt. Governor).

Lauinger's letter addresses the matter of the rape and incest exception, and why the consistent pro-life position permits abortion only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. (Riley cited the lack of a rape and incest exception as the reason for her opposition to SB 714, but she failed to offer such an exception as an amendment, either in her committee or in the Senate as a whole.)

Ethel Waters, the revered African-American vocalist of blues and spirituals, had occasion near the end of her life to recount its beginning: "My father raped my mother when she was twelve years old, and today they've named a park for me in Chester, Pennsylvania." Recounted in her autobiography, His Eye is on the Sparrow, her life is but one of many of children conceived in rape who went on to make great contributions to this world.

She might wonder how it makes sense, in logic or in law, to execute a child for the crime of his or her father? Abortion does not erase the trauma of a rape. Abortion compounds the first tragedy with a second tragedy - one for which the woman herself is responsible.

It is not valid to assume the best thing for a victim of rape or incest is to abort her baby. For society, abortion might seem to "solve the problem." But for the woman herself, it does not. Abortion often leads to psychological anguish and emotional devastation. Britain's Royal College of Psychiatry issued a warning in March that women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions. They advised that women should not have an abortion until they are counseled about the possible risk to their mental health.

There are more than one million unborn babies being killed by abortion in our country every year. One could rely on the absence of a rape exception as an excuse for opposing all manner of bills that seek to reduce abortions and save the babies we can. Or one could support these reasonable, modest regulations which, while not making abortion illegal, at least give some unborn children - and their mothers - a chance to avoid catastrophe.

That's why Nancy's votes against SB 714 were so disappointing. When the opportunity to help these babies came, she didn't give the benefit of the doubt to life.

Sen. Tom Coburn was on with 1170 KFAQ's Pat Campbell this morning explaining his decision to vote for the $700 billion bailout. It was strange to hear Coburn acknowledge that this bill might not work, that this bill didn't address the underlying causes, but that we had to do something. He compared it to using a defibrillator on a heart attack patient; you deal with his high cholesterol levels after you've saved his life.

But how did Tom Coburn become persuaded that the current situation is a financial heart attack and that the bailout is a financial defibrillator?

Coburn mentioned that he heard from the heads of all the biggest banks in Oklahoma. He specifically mentioned, by title but not by name, the chairman of the Bank of Oklahoma. (That's George Kaiser, if you didn't know.) He heard that banks won't lend to each other, that people with 650 credit scores couldn't get car loans, that businesses were having their loans called by banks who needed the money on their books.

A couple of days ago, while folding laundry, I was struck by similarities between the mortgage bailout and the BOk / Great Plains Airlines bailout. In both cases, I have the sense that the bailout is not to stave off dire consequences for the general public, but dire consequences for big shots who made bad decisions.

Recall that in the Great Plains situation, BOK made a bad loan after two initial refusals, based on private assurances from then-Mayor Susan Savage that the City of would make the bank whole if the loan went bad. That's according to former Councilor Jim Mautino:

In another video on that same entry, Jim Mautino mentions being called to the office of Stan Lybarger, president of BOk. Mautino took city attorneys Larry Simmons and Drew Rees with him to the meeting. Lybarger told them that he had twice turned down the Great Plains loan, but relented because then Mayor Susan Savage gave him "assurances." This would be the same Savage who gave "assurances" to the City Council at the time that transfering AFP3 to the Tulsa Industrial Authority would not expose the City to any liability in the Great Plains financing deal.

Tulsa city councilors were warned that the city's credit rating would suffer if the city didn't pay back the loan. I suspect that the real worry was that some BOk executives would suffer legal consequences if this bad debt hadn't been paid off before a certain deadline. A federally-insured bank isn't allowed to make risky loans for political reasons.

In the current "crisis," we're hearing from a lot of Wall Street types of impending doom, but we're not seeing an unreasonable tightening of credit on Main Street. My suspicion is that this bailout is really about protecting fat cats from the consequences of their bad decisions, and the fat cats are doing a fine job of spooking Congress into a stampede.

I think Coburn was sincere in stating the rationale for his vote. It may be that the bank officials were shooting straight with him. Then again, he was taking his cues from someone who supports bigger government and higher taxes and is a bundler for Barack Obama.

MORE: Whom did Coburn convince? (Emphasis added.)

Just talked to a Republican leadership aide. Here's what he had to say about the big margin today. He cited three factors:

1) Up to the point of the Monday vote, members were only hearing from people adamantly opposed to the bill. After the vote, that changed. They began to hear from employers, bankers, and opinion leaders back in their districts who told them how much it would hurt the local economy if they didn't act to try to calm the credit markets; 2) The strong Senate vote helped. Members could say to themselves, "Well, both my state's senators voted for it." And Sen. Tom Coburn's strong support for the measure carried a lot of weight with House conservatives; 3) The inclusion of the FDIC increase gave members something positive and easy to understand to talk about in explaining the bill. The purchase of illiquid assets isn't easy to explain, and if you can explain it, doesn't sound very appealing to anyone. The FDIC provision was easier to portray as a proposal to help "Main Street," with local bankers complaining and worrying about large withdrawals.