Jim Bridenstine's life-time voting record: 8

This does not address the fact that Bridenstine's personal voting record in elections is nothing more than an obfuscation campaign that the Sullivan campaign is pouring big funds into. John Sullivan is sophomoronically attempting to mislead the very voters that he is supposed to be serving. Surely, no thinking person falls for the "91%" line of hogwash.

John Sullivan is claiming repeatedly that Bridenstine is bringing up his awful absenteeism as a member of Congress as a way to shine light on Sullivan's drinking problem, but Sullivan has met the average attendance of the US Congress in ONLY 1 out of the 12 Quarters AFTER his treatment at the Betty Ford Treatment Center, in 2009.

Sullivan is like the man behind the curtain telling everyone, at great expense and with tremendous grandiosity, "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!". John Sullivan does not want the voters to ask why he did not show up for work to cast votes that HE WAS PAID BY THEM TO CAST. Sullivan's comparison of his nearly 700 missed, taxpayer expensed votes to Bridenstine's personal voting record in elections is simply as different as apples and oranges and the entire John Sullivan campaign should be ashamed that they are taking this road of deception.

Mr. Haworth, your comment amounts to "you didn't write about what I wanted you to write about." The only comparison I've drawn is an apples to apples comparison of the two candidates' voting histories. You call this a "road of deception," but everything I've written is true and documented.

I offered Jim Bridenstine an opportunity to respond before I published this article. He has chosen not to do so. It's hard to take the claim of "Real. Conservative. Leadership." seriously from someone who cast his first vote in Oklahoma one day before announcing a campaign for Congress. Exercising your right to vote is the bare minimum level of political activism.

When Oklahoma Republican leaders set out to build a majority in the legislature, they recruited people with community involvement, a conservative temperament, and a positive public image but without a track record of political involvement and activism. Now we find that some of our Republican legislators love corporate welfare and insider dealing, aren't all that committed to the pro-life cause, and see parental choice in education and administrative consolidation as a threat to their pals running the local public school system. Republicans built a quick majority, but not a sturdy, conservative majority, and we saw the result in a legislative session that everyone regards as a failure. So pardon me for being hesitant to entrust a congressional seat to someone with a slender track record of political interest and engagement.

Michael,
First let me disclaim that the following comments are my personal opinion, and not that of the Bridenstine campaign. That being said:

Does the fact that Jim Bridenstine, like many Americans, has not availed himself of his right to vote as often as many would wish, really change anything?

Does it change the fact that Jim has an academic record that towers above John Sullivan’s? Jim graduated with a triple-major from Rice and an MBA from Cornell. Those are anything but slack institutions of learning. Could John Sullivan ever have been accepted into these schools?

Does it change the fact that Jim Bridenstine graduated from Rice, but rather than cash in on his newly acquired degree in the private sector, he opted instead to serve our country as a naval aviator? Does it change the fact that Jim flew combat missions? Has John Sullivan ever flown combat missions?

Does it change the fact that, unlike John Sullivan, Jim Bridenstine has not been arrested three times? In fact, unlike John Sullivan, Jim Bridenstine has never been arrested.

Does it change the fact that Jim has never had to check himself into a swanky drug and alcohol rehab center like Betty Ford? John Sullivan can’t lay claim to the same, can he?

Does it change the fact that Jim is a regular American that hasn’t been preparing himself for most of his life to run for office? Or the fact that John Sullivan has spent the last 17 years in elective office? Haven’t Americans been crying out for average Americans to run for office to replace career politicians? Haven’t you, yourself, longed for this a time or two?

Does it change the fact that, whether he made money or lost money at the Air and Space Museum, he had the credentials to get a job like that of the director of TASM? Could John Sullivan, at 34 years of age, even have gotten his resume’ inside the museum’s door farther than the nearest trash can?

Yes, Jim isn’t a devoted voter. That’s a bit embarrassing for a congressional candidate. But it isn’t anywhere near as embarrassing as having to publicly apologize for suggesting that the only way he could think of to get the Democrats in the United States Senate to pass a budget was for him to “go over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them…”?

I am happy to weigh Jim’s somewhat embarrassing personal voting record against the myriad of embarrassments that John Sullivan has brought upon himself, his family, his staff and the people of the 1st District.

Chris, you may recall that I supported Bill LaFortune for mayor in 2002 and worked on his campaign. I was led to believe he would work with the Council, be attentive to neighborhoods throughout Tulsa, and not be a rubber stamp for the Chamber. When that turned out not to be true, I supported your primary challenge in 2006. I didn't back a challenger with no evidence of prior interest in city government; I supported someone who had demonstrated real. conservative. leadership., building a diverse but cohesive coalition on the council, and had suffered slings and arrows because of it. I didn't have to guess what Chris Medlock's political principles were or whether he would stick to those principles when he came under fire.

When your challenge fell short, you and I were urged to support Ben Faulk's independent campaign -- the only true conservative in the general election, we were told. Turned out Faulk had been a long-time Sapulpa resident and had only registered to vote in Tulsa a year earlier. I didn't want to entrust my vote for mayor to someone with no demonstrated interest in city issues. As I wrote at the time, "Faulk’s supporters appear to have latched on to the one mayoral candidate who has less of a Tulsa track record than Kathy Taylor. For his supporters, he is a conveniently blank screen upon which they can project their hopes. That’s not enough to earn my vote."

Without a doubt, Jim Bridenstine is intelligent and has an honorable military record, but there are plenty of smart veterans in American politics whose political views you and I despise. John Glenn was brilliant and a man of unquestioned courage and personal integrity, but we'd still have been better off without him in the U. S. Senate.

What do we know about Jim Bridenstine's political views that pre-date his decision to run for Congress? Has he written op-eds? Has he volunteered or endorsed or contributed to candidates? Did he announce support for state initiatives like the anti-sharia amendment, traditional marriage, or official English?

We can look at a politician like Mitt Romney and see how he has customized his views in each race, optimizing his opinions to whatever is needed to win a particular election. Because he has run several times, we can make comparisons and note inconsistencies. When Sullivan ran for Congress in 2001, we could see that his congressional rhetoric was consistent with his legislative record. But we have no way of knowing whether Bridenstine's political views are genuine or whether they've been custom-built to capitalize on certain threads of discontent with Sullivan and to resonate with current waves of public opinion.

The only political track record we have for Jim Bridenstine is the one you see above -- the one that indicates that Jim Bridenstine has never been very interested in politics and government."

In the recent debate between Lt. Cmdr. Bridenstine and John Sullivan the “Health Care Truth and Transparency Act” was briefly mentioned.

Beyond Lt. Cmdr. Bridenstine’s excellent point that such things are not a federal matter, I would draw attention to the names of those supporting the measure in question as compared to Congressman Sullivan’s top campaign donors.

While writing a law favored by your donors by no means proves it is a bad law (though in this case, it is a bad law), does looking across this list give anyone else pause?

Supporters (http://sullivan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HTTA_Coalition_sig-on--05_12_2010.pdf):

American Medical Association
American Academy of Dermatology Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery
American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons
American College of Surgeons
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association
American Society of Anesthesiologists
American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Sullivan’s top donors: (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00013847&type=I&newmem=N):

Christner Trucking
Williams Companies
American Society of Anesthesiologists
Freedom Project
AT&T Inc
American Academy of Ophthalmology
ConocoPhillips
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Senior Star Living
Bp Capital
American Academy of Otolaryngology
Cox Enterprises
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn
National Beer Wholesalers Assn
Alliance Resource Partners
Clean Energy Fuels Corp
American Psychiatric Assn
American Bankers Assn
American College of Radiology
American College of Surgeons
... 24
American Academy of Dermatology Assn
American Medical Assn
... 48
American Osteopathic Assn

This was sadly expected to me. While still driving in my car after listening to the debate, I was on the phone with a family member. We discussed this portion, and we were confused about its implications for optometrists vs ophthalmologists--which group would be helped and which one would be hurt by the bill. I simply told them, over the phone, that they should look up Sullivan’s donors; that would tell us all we needed to know. We could verify our conclusion by checking which organizations were backing the bill.

Perhaps had I used this simple method at the time, and noticed that Sullivan was backed by the National Assn of Home Builders and the American Bankers Assn, I would have been less surprised by his about face on TARP.

I suppose such depressing predictability is “truth and transparency” of a sort. What is that phrase about an honest politician?

At the time that I wrote the following, the thought did not even cross my mind that you might take it as me being critical of you or this article. It was only intended as a statement of fact. "This does not address the fact that Bridenstine's personal voting record in elections is nothing more than an obfuscation campaign that the Sullivan campaign is pouring big funds into."

My response to your question above:
"What do we know about Jim Bridenstine's political views that pre-date his decision to run for Congress?"

Personally, I knew what his political views were before his decision to run for Congress, but that is only because I personally knew him and had engaged in deep conversations with him about political issues. At that time, he was an Executive Director of a museum that received donations from people of much different political persuasions, so making public statements regarding his deeply held political views could easily be seen as an unnecessary revelation of information that could lead to a loss of support for the museum. Air and Space Museum's Executive Directors to not, typically, write op eds expressing their political viewpoints about all of the pertinent issues of the day.

For those who do happen to have the unique benefit that I have had of getting to know Jim before he decided to run for office, and also for those who did not happen to be with Jim at the time that he attended a political function in Florida with Sarah Huckabee (Daughter of Gov. Mike Huckabee) in support of Gov. Huckabee as he battled in front of a raucus crowd of nay-saying Union Members who ultimately ended up endorsing Gov. Huckabee, I offer the following:

I don't need any of those things. All I need to know is that Jim has a long track record of honorable accomplishments. As you stated above, "Without a doubt, Jim Bridenstine is intelligent and has an honorable military record..." You then mention Senator John Glenn writing, "John Glenn was brilliant and a man of unquestioned courage and personal integrity,..." Senator Glenn was a legislator who may have had greatly different political views than what you, Chris, or I hold, but because he was, in fact, as you described him, we never had to wonder if he truly held the viewpoints that he said that he did. To believe that we should conclude otherwise would just be silly. It is the same with LCDR Jim Bridenstine. He is a man who has been an Eagle Scout, has been a leader in athletics in high school and college, has honorably served his nation with tremendous devotion (Try landing a Hawkeye on a carrier some time), has earned an MBA from a prestigious University, and has served his community well in his duties at our Air and Space Museum. We have NO REASON to doubt that the political views that he is espousing are truly his political views. If we were to be afraid that this man, who has served us all honorably for the majority of his adult life, MIGHT be a waffler along the lines of Romney (or dare I say, Sullivan - RiverTax, TARP, Super Committee), we would be acting unreasonably, just as we would be if we worried that Senator Glenn MIGHT be pandering/placating to us. Although we disagreed with Senator Glenn on much, we never wondered if he truly held the viewpoints that he claimed to hold.

As for Bridenstine writing op eds after his tenure at TASM, I would suggest this one that was published in the Tulsa Business Journal in February, 2011. I really appreciate his clarity and deep understanding of the needs of our nation's economy and I have no doubt that these are his actual beliefs. http://www.tulsabusiness.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=52367&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

For your reading enjoyment, here is an excerpt: "Congressional negligence

As inflationary pressure and savvy investors have immunized the bond market from the Fed’s massive intervention, Congress must find fault in itself for destroying the dollar and sending capital overseas.

Here’s why: The more money Congress spends, the more money the treasury must borrow. The more money the treasury must borrow, the more interest rates increase. The more interest rates increase, the more the Fed prints money to buy bonds to bring the rates down. The more the Fed prints money, the more the dollar loses value. The more the dollar loses value, the more capital goes abroad. The more capital goes abroad, the slower our economic growth and lower our federal revenue. In response, Congress will then authorize more borrowing, and the cycle begins again."

Articles like this are draining because they represent everything that's wrong with news reporting today. Where's the substance? Where are the issues that merit debate? You might as well be comparing water bills... Sullivan's voting record (I'm sorry, hw many times was he absent?), numerous arrests, special interest support and substance abuse problems set a standard that is an embarrassment to the State of Oklahoma and all of its voting districts, not to mention the Republican Party.

Does Sullivan really measure up to what we should expect from our representatives? What is Sullivan’s platform, old money, friends in positions of power and a “please feel sorry for me and give me another chance because I’ve been trying to turn my life around” message? If Sullivan really cared about the district he would have resigned, but then he’d have to figure out how to occupy his time and the two homes he sold prior to getting elected just don’t amount to much of a resume.

I have higher expectations than Sullivan and I think Oklahoma voters do too. I want a leader in office; someone that is driven by purpose, has integrity and values and understands what it means to be a "true" public servant and be CONSERVATIVE. Simply put, there is no comparison…

The issue I take with the Sullivan campaign is not one of bringing facts to light. I'm a proponent of electoral sunlight every day of the week and twice on Sunday. However, I do take the Sullivan campaign to task for the misleading tactics used to disseminate said facts.

I received two mailers in as many days referencing Jim Bridenstine's voting record. Both were clearly designed to convey the impression Bridenstine is the INCUMBENT — and one who skipped legislative votes at that.

Your post presents the facts with clarity, offering your opinion and supportive data which may help the voter make an informed judgment about an issue of this campaign. Sullivan's mailers, on the other hand, were intended to deceive and to polarize. Only on careful review would a casual reader decipher the facts underneath the highlighting, bolded fonts, and statements like: "He failed to oppose ObamaCare. We can't trust him."

And no, that's not just my impression.

Not wanting to be uncharitable to the Sullivan camp, I put it to my out-of-town guests, asking them to read the mailers and then summarize the content with no coaching from me and no knowledge of the parties involved. Result: "This Bridenstine guy is the incumbent and he skipped voting on ObamaCare."

My parents, who raised four teenagers, had a term for the linguistic dexterity used in these mailers: "weasel words."

Some may shrug that off as "just the nature of politics," but I reject the notion the voters of the 1st District should accept misleading double-speak as a substitute for political discourse.

I believe my fellow citizens can decide for themselves whether they consider missing elections as a voter or missing legislative votes as a congressman to be the greater transgression. It's a shame John Sullivan doesn't have the same faith in his constituents and would rather use a red herring to finagle votes under a haze of misrepresentation. He has obviously been in Washington too long.

As it is, Sullivan's own campaign tactics have turned this once-casual supporter of his opponent into someone passionately invested in defeating John Sullivan on June 26th.

Next time Sullivan would be wise to save the Alinskyite tactics for his Democrat opposition. If there is a next time for him, which I sincerely hope will not be the case.

Dan, in Mr. Bridenstine's case, his record as a voter (8 times in 19 years) is the only substance available to us with regard to government and politics. He has no other track record. It's interesting to me that the Bridenstine campaign's attack on Sullivan keeps coming back to his 91% voting record rather than substantive issues. I suspect it's because they understand that each specific stand will alienate some of Bridenstine's support. As long as he avoids specifics, all of his supporters can imagine that he agrees with them.

Abigail, thank you for your kind words. While it would be lovely if every voter had the patience that you have to read my long-winded articles, the reality is that a mailer gives a candidate about 15 seconds to catch the voter's attention and convey a message as he walks from the mailbox to the wastebasket.

Your out-of-town guests' reaction is interesting. It's hard for me imagine that anyone local who is likely to vote in a primary election would be unaware that Sullivan is the incumbent. There was a question on the November 2010 ballot, SQ 756, a state constitutional amendment to block the implementation of Obamacare in Oklahoma, protecting the right to pay directly for medical care and prohibiting laws compelling people to participate in a health care system. By failing to vote in the November 2010 general election, it can fairly be said that Bridenstine failed to oppose Obamacare when he had the opportunity to do so.

"At that time, he was an Executive Director of a museum that received donations from people of much different political persuasions, so making public statements regarding his deeply held political views could easily be seen as an unnecessary revelation of information that could lead to a loss of support for the museum."

So I assume we can safely say that Mr. Bridenstein, if elected, might again hide his true politcal beliefs, under the guise that those beliefs could adversely affect donations from donors who do not share in some or all of his beliefs, as was the case in his previous employment, per your comment. Perhaps someone could educate me how this has anything to do with "integrity". Rather, this sounds to me as if Mr. Bridenstein is a true politician in the making.

I'm not really all that enamored of Sullivan but he seems like a decent enough guy to me and whether somebody likes his record or not at least he has one. He also gets out in the community and talks to people and to groups so I know where he stands on things, or at least what he says.
I can't find anything on Mr. Bridenstine besides a good campaign slogan and lots and lots of signs out on our streets and highways. I can't even tell if he did a good job at TASM or not. Apparently they suffered financially a little after he took over but all sorts of non profits suffered during the economic meltdown including one that I'm associated with.

It just goes to show that with enough money anybody can be a candidate. I'm not saying this to put Mr. Bridenstine down. I'm just making a general comment.

Personally I find his voting record to be troublesome. It shows to me that he is not very serious about what he is doing now.

Keep up the good work Michael.