BatesLine

In my reading about public-private partnerships, I had heard about non-compete clauses for privatized toll roads in Texas, where government was forbidden by its contract with the private toll road operators from making any improvements to public roads that might draw traffic -- and revenue -- away from the toll road.

But there's a public-private toll road partnership with a non-compete clause that required local government to make a parallel road more congested. The toll road is E-470 and the state is Colorado:

When E-470 opened in 2002, some people thought it was a strange coincidence that, about the same time, the speed limit on nearby Tower Road, a paved, 2-lane, rural highway, dropped from 55 MPH to 40 MPH. Several apparently unnecessary traffic signals also appeared. This, in spite of the fact that after the toll road opened, Tower Road would have even less traffic than it did before.

Well, it was no coincidence.

The lower speed limit and extra traffic signals, which make Tower Road slower and less convenient to use, are required by a "non-compete" clause in an agreement between the E-470 Public Highway Authority and nearby Commerce City.

The goal is to impede traffic on Tower Road so drivers will decide they are better off using the toll road. This protects the revenue stream from the tolls, thereby protecting the interests of the toll road's investors.

The non-compete clause between the highway authority and Commerce City provides that the speed limit on Tower Road be lowered from 55 MPH to 40 MPH, and that stop lights be installed on Tower Road at 96th, 104th, and 112th Avenues. Also, the City must limit future improvements on Tower Road to shoulder work, turning lanes at intersections, development-specific widening, and normal maintenance. These requirements must remain in effect until January 1, 2008. After that, the speed limit can be raised, the stop lights can be removed, and the City is again free to make improvements to Tower Road.

The other non-compete clause is in an agreement with the Cities of Aurora, Brighton, and Thornton, the Town of Parker, and Adams and Douglas Counties. It provides that, for at least fifteen years, these entities will not construct or improve any road (with certain pre-approved exceptions) that competes with E-470 "in a way that the amount of toll revenues projected by the Approved Plan of Finance to be collected from the users of E-470 would be materially impaired or reduced."

Can we all agree that this kind of practice is just plain wrong? But it's exactly the sort of stipulation that these PPP contracts will have in order to make them profitable and attractive to investors.

Imagine if the City of Tulsa's arena management contract with SMG included a requirement on the city to, say, levy a $10 a ticket tax on movies and concerts at smaller venues, so as to channel pent-up demand for entertainment to arena events and ensure that SMG met its performance targets.

(I found this story in a list of examples of blogs from across the political spectrum doing original reporting, covering stories that the traditional media had missed.)

This, posted at the American Spectator website, seems familiar:

TOM COBURN RECALLS a confrontation on Capitol Hill shortly after last November's GOP bloodbath. He ran into his fellow Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the then powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and chief Senate sponsor of the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere. "He strolled up to me and said: 'Well, Tom, I hope you're satisfied for helping us lose the election.'" Stevens was evidently still infuriated by Coburn's nationally publicized crusade against runaway pork-barrel spending over the past two years. To that, Coburn, never the shrinking violet, replied: "No, Ted, you lost us the election."

The story speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs inside the Republican Party and the Gulf of Mexico-sized disconnect between the party powerbrokers in Washington and a thoroughly disgusted conservative base. The party regulars still blame the November defeat on the fiscal whistleblowers like Coburn, not the fake Republicans who grew a $1.9 trillion budget by an additional trillion dollars in five years.

Coburn and his pork-fighting colleagues are making a difference:

In January, Coburn strong-armed the new Democratic majority into passing the leanest federal budget in five years, and, more remarkably, one that withholds funding for thousands of Teapot museums and Wild Turkey Federations. Coburn and his constant but lower-profile senatorial sidekick, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, teamed up to save the nation about $15 to $20 billion. "We actually shamed them into ending the pork," Coburn tells me.

But Coburn isn't satisfied:

His latest fiscal crusade is called "Good Government A to Z, "a plan to rewrite the entire budget act. Why? "Half the federal agencies don't even report on improper payments. FEMA claims none. They can't pass a basic audit. Twenty-five percent of government programs don't even have a goal," he complains. He is so miserly when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars that last year he returned $200,000 of unspent money from his personal Senate office expense account to the government. Yet, Coburn, with virtually the smallest budget of any senator, is arguably the most effective legislator on Capitol Hill. Jeff Flake, who is Coburn's anti-spending pit bull in the House, says that he and the small band of small government conservatives in the House often say: "Thank God for Tom, he makes our life at least tolerable over here in the House, where earmarking is an even bigger problem."

Can we please have more people like Tom Coburn, Randy Brogdon, and John Eagleton in public office?

... why someone who represents a district of roughly 35,000 people needs to raise a quarter of a million dollars to run for re-election? And why he needs to spend $20,000 a month in an off-year?

House Speaker Lance Cargill, raised almost $250,000 in the first six months of 2007, including more than $190,000 from April 1 through June 30, according to state Ethics Commission reports. Cargill's campaign fund spent more than $120,000 during the first half of 2007.

MORE: Maybe this is a clue?

Oklahoma House Speaker Republican Lance Cargill, the founder of a group known as The 100 Ideas Initiative, has invited Poole to give a June 13 luncheon speech at Spirit Bank in Tulsa.

Oklahoma activists opposed to the construction of NAFTA superhighway toll roads have objected that bringing a "heavy hitter" like Poole to Oklahoma signals that state politicians are already lining up with investment bankers in a PPP plan designed to bring the Texas Department of Transportation's Trans-Texas Corridor into their state.

Poole's luncheon speech will be introduced by opening remarks from Cargill.

I want to call your attention to three relatively new links on the sidebar:

TPD Blog, the blog of the Tulsa Police Department, has had a lot of interesting content lately. They link to articles in local media about TPD, and provide regular updates on the progress of the latest academy class. In one recent entry, Off. Will Dalsing expresses his opinion of the personnel and financial challenges faced by the TPD:

So here is the problem: while it is true that we are back to being at, or slightly above, our "authorized strength," that number is terribly low. The Tulsa Police Department has been at that number for over twenty years. True, the population has not significantly changed in numbers, but the calls for service (the amount of calls that the officers must respond to) yearly has gone up in the tens of thousands....

Imagine that you are having a bit of a problem in the neighborhood. Kids are out at all hours of the night being loud and tearing stuff up. Maybe there are some houses with what appears to be a lot of traffic…. maybe someone is selling drugs there. Or maybe there are some scary looking people whom you are pretty sure are calling themselves a gang. You would call the police right?

So the Police Captain at the local division assigns a whole squad of seven or eight cops to your street. The Captain tells them "saturate that neighborhood for a few days….I don’t want anyone to so much as spit on the sidewalk without having to talk to an officer because of it."

Is that a dream? It is in Tulsa. See we don’t actually have enough staff to take the calls for service. We "hire-over" nearly every shift at every division. It’s hard to be pro-active when you are always back "on your heels." So even thought we do have a squad at some divisions for "Directed Patrol," it may be still at the expense of our response to calls in the field.

Or let’s say you are building a new structure in your downtown that will likely bring tens of thousands of people to the area several nights a week. The area is in the process of revitalization. Foot traffic is going up. The bars and restaurants are popping up. For tourism, safety, and the well being of everyone involved, more cops are needed. In fact, the business owners are so decisive on the matter that they are willing to give their own money to help equip officers to work in the area. Can we give them a squad of officers? Not currently.

We know we must be pro-active for Tulsa’s new arena and for the downtown district as a whole. A part-time bike squad is in the works but how will we have the manpower to staff the area full time?

The second link is Stop the Chop, a website about protecting Woodward Park's trees from indiscriminate removal. You can read the history of the controversy, view relevant documents, and learn what you can do to help.

The final link is not Tulsa-specific. It's a web community for conservative activists throughout the State of Oklahoma, and it's called GetRightOK.com. The site includes a blog, a forum, an events calendar, and other community networking tools. It's intended not just to be a place to chat and trade insults but to network for the purpose of taking constructive political action. I've written a guest piece for them, yet again about the Oklahoma Republican state convention, but with a focus on the state chairman and vice chairman's races, with some historical background.

Fairgrounds annexation: Still no action from the Mayor, who has until the end of this week to sign or veto. The scrivener's error that reset the 15-day clock was a failure to specify to which council district the newly annexed territory would be assigned. I supposed everyone thought that was obvious, as it's surrounded by Council District 4 on all four sides.

City budget: The Mayor will submit her proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2007-08 to the Council at the 10:00 a.m. urban development committee meeting, with a full presentation to follow at the regular meeting on Thursday night. With the fire district tax dead (a fact the Whirled didn't get around to reporting until Saturday), there will have to be some creative juggling to get the books to balance. Rumors are that proposed spending will grow faster than the rate of inflation and that the arena operating costs will be worse than previously acknowledged.

Also on the council committee agendas: During the 8:00 a.m. meeting, a presentation on the FY '08 operating budget for the BOk Center. During the 10:00 a.m. meeting, Councilor Turner's proposal to require the public display of sales tax permits, the rezoning of the SE corner of 11th Street and 161st East Ave. for residential and commercial use (currently the Brashear Stables; the TMAPC voted 4-4 on the rezoning in a rare tie), a discussion of the 2006 Police Department Manpower Report, and a property tax increase.

Yeah, you read that right. City of Tulsa property owners will have their millage go up enough to cover the latest $6.125 million installment of the city's $14.5 million settlement with Arvin McGee, who spent 12 years in prison for crimes he didn't commit because of what a jury ruled was Tulsa police misconduct. The Council has no choice but to commit the money to pay the settlement.

Brad Henry veto watch: The first attempt to override Henry's veto of pro-life SB 714 failed, because of a switcheroo by Shawnee Sen. Charlie Laster and a longer term flip-flop by Sand Springs Sen. Nancy Riley, who promised in her first race in 2000, "absolutely NO STATE FUNDING FOR ABORTION." Henry protected the interests of his trial lawyer buddies by vetoing SB 507, a comprehensive lawsuit reform bill that incorporated most of the provisions he had previously championed. Brandon Dutcher says there's a link: Laster insisted on the tort reform veto in exchange for his SB 714 flip-flop.

The National Association of Manufacturers is watching Oklahoma's progress on lawsuit reform very closely. And here's a fact sheet from the State Chamber outlining the key points of SB 507. (Hat tip: Point of Law.)

And after returning tanned and rested from Spring Break, missing the successful conclusion of budget negotiations, Henry has now vetoed not only the legislature's budget, but five agency bills that matched his own budget proposal.

Today should see passage of Oklahoma's landmark immigration enforcement bill, HB 1804. If it passes, it will be headed to the governor's desk.

UPDATE: Where was I this morning? Oversleeping. I thought I had two alarms set, but somehow neither one went off. We'll try again tomorrow morning at 6:10.

As you've heard by now, SB 714, which would have gotten Oklahoma taxpayers out of the abortion business, was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry. Although the bill passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses, it was close enough that the defection of one senator, Shawnee Democrat Charlie Laster (405-521-5539), was enough to cause the override attempt to fail. Tulsa Republican Sen. James Williamson promises to try again, as is possible under the Legislature's rules, so it is still worthwhile to call state senators to thank them for their vote for SB 714 or to ask them to change and support overriding the Governor's veto.

There were three other Democrats in the Senate who voted for SB 714 in committee before voting against it last week and again during the override vote. They are:

Nancy Riley (Tulsa), 405-521-5600
Joe Sweeden (Pawhuska), 405-521-5581
Charles Wyrick (Fairland, Miami, Grove), 405-521-5561

Nancy Riley represents western Tulsa County and was elected as a Republican in 2000 (by a narrow margin) and 2004 (by a two-thirds) vote. In 2006, after finishing third in the Republican Lt. Governor's primary behind two very well-funded candidates, she crossed the aisle and became a Democrat. (My disappointment with that decision was as much personal as political.)

Not only has she changed parties, apparently she has changed sides on the issue of public funding for abortion. Brandon Dutcher has unearthed a flyer from Nancy Riley's first run for State Senate in 2000, in which she proclaims her pro-life bona fides. He notes that there are only five words in the piece that she deems important enough for ALL CAPS:

I will also fight for:

** Tough parental consent laws;

** Enforcement of a mandatory “cooling off” period before anyone can receive an abortion;

** And, absolutely NO STATE FUNDING FOR ABORTION.

You can read the whole thing at Brandon Dutcher's blog. According to this piece of campaign literature, this issue was not just one among many to her, but was "one of the reasons why [she] decided to run for the State Senate."

With a margin of only 265 votes, and given the socially conservative makeup of her district, I have to believe that she would have lost the seat had she not taken a strong, uncompromising pro-life stance.

I said last year that the honorable course for Sen. Riley was to follow in Phil Gramm's footsteps and resign her seat, then run again as a Democrat and let the voters decide whether having her as a state senator is more or less important to them than being represented by a Republican.

That's not likely to happen, but at the very least, she can keep the promise she made to the voters: "NO STATE FUNDING FOR ABORTION."

A bill that would have enabled cities to establish fire districts and levy property taxes in those districts was narrowly defeated in the Oklahoma House, killing it for two years.

A floor version of SB 605 (link opens Rich Text Format file) which omitted the most objectionable features of the bill, but it was assumed that these would be readded by a conference committee before final approval.

The debate against the bill was led by Oklahoma City Reps. Mike Reynolds and Randy Terrill and Tulsa Reps. Pam Peterson and John Wright. The Tulsa Metro Chamber was lobbying heavily in favor of the bill.

It will be interesting to see how Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor responds to the failure of this bill. She had been planning to go after this source of revenue. For example, now that it's off the table, will she be more likely to sign the fairgrounds annexation ordinance, because it would mean additional revenue for the City.

One of my favorite state senators, Randy Brogdon of Owasso, is profiled in the current issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly. One of the many things I appreciate about him is that, unlike some Republicans, he believes that being pro-business means reducing government's burdens on all business, not providing special subsidies to politically favored businesses. When asked for examples of government waste, here's what he told UTW reporter Brian Ervin:

So, where is the government spending irresponsibly?

"Corporate welfare," answered Brogdon as an immediate example.

The governor's Opportunity Fund and EDGE Fund were specific examples he cited.

"It's not right for the state government to spend money to handpick which companies are going to prosper," he said. "If was governor and I was going to make that decision, I would set a level playing field and set up a free market."

Senator, are you announcing your candidacy for governor in 2010?

"Not today," answered Brogdon in mid-laugh.

I hope he will.

Elsewhere in the issue, sports columnist Dwayne Davis reviews a Tulsa and Muskogee-based sports talk station called the Sports Animal. This paragraph caught my eye:

[Host Geoff Haxton] is joined by local sports broadcasting legend Bob Carpenter and/or Channel 6's John Holcomb depending on the day of the week. It is refreshing to hear Tulsa talk from guys who understand the town.

Interesting note about Carpenter. For years he could be found on sports talk rival AM 1430 The Buzz. The 'Carpenter Call' was a staple of the afternoon show with Pop and Plank.

Dwayne is probably too young to remember this, but Bob Carpenter was a pioneer of local sports talk back in the late '70s, with his nightly hour of Sportsline on KRMG. (Sportsline was 6-7, Nightline with David Stanford was 7-8, then Johnny Martin came on with big band music until one o'clock in the morning.)

I missed this when it first ran two weeks ago, but Katharine Kelly gave a very good review to a Filipino restaurant called Phil-Asia, near 36th & Sheridan. We'll have to give it a try.

My Urban Tulsa Weekly column this week is on two very different events: last Saturday's Oklahoma Republican State Convention and last Friday's inaugural gala for the National Fiddler Hall of Fame. The convention story covers the race for state party chairman and a brief description of what delegates were saying about next year's presidential race. (More about the NFHOF gala in a separate entry.)

In plugging my own column, I shamefully neglected to call attention to Brian Ervin's excellent piece on Gov. Brad Henry, and his pique at the Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature for coming up with a budget agreement -- a bill that passed the Senate unanimously -- while he was away on a spring break vacation in the sun. Ervin has a quote from Henry supporter Frosty Troy:

"Brad Henry is the single laziest governor we've ever had," said Frosty Troy, founding editor of the Oklahoma Observer, Pulitzer nominee and long-time fixture within the Capitol press corps.

Troy, who's covered seven governors during his nearly 50 years of reporting on the state Capitol, said Henry's typical pattern during his five years in office is to keep a low profile during session, if he's present at all, and then show up at the end to take credit for many of the more popular pieces of legislation.

"He shows up late at the Capitol and keeps pretty much a social calendar," said Troy.

If for no other reason, you need to click through to Brian Ervin's article to see the wonderful caricature of Henry that adorns the story.

Missed linking to this earlier:

See-Dubya's earlier entry about the Prince of Darkness, former State Sen. Gene Stipe, attracted a celebrity commenter. Mark Singer, who wrote the 1979 New Yorker profile of Stipe, responded to See-Dubya, who comments on Singer's comments.

It's interesting that Singer says he has "refrained from reprinting it in any of [his] books," because it's a terrific piece. He doesn't come right out and say he regrets writing the story, but he seems awfully apologetic about it, and even denies that the article is what it manifestly is -- a profile of Stipe.

Also on the Stipe beat, Jeff Shaw has an interesting theory about why Stipe would make illegal straw donations when he's already doing time for making illegal straw contributions. That same entry reviews an editorial by a Pottawatomie County paper on the straw contributor scandal, which involves the campaigns of three politicians from that part of the state.

The McCarville Report is the place to watch for further developments. McCarville links to today's Oklahoman story (free registration required) reporting that State Auditor Jeff McMahan went on three trips with Stipe business partner Steve Phipps, despite claims by McMahan that he barely knew the man. Phipps and Stipe were partners in abstracting companies, which are regulated by McMahan's office.

Last week, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 82-14, HB 2595 (link opens a Microsoft Word-compatible Rich Text Format file), which would move Oklahoma's 2008 presidential preference primary from the first Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in January. The bill was authored by State Rep. Trebor Worthen and State Sen. Todd Lamb, both Oklahoma City Republicans. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Rules Committee.

Oklahoma is already in a strategic position with its current primary date, which it shares with California, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, and Utah. (West Virginia has a state convention for delegate selection that day, and North Dakota has caucuses.) Although California will attract a lot of attention, it doesn't have the majority of delegates up for grabs that day. In fact, Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have a combined total of 125 delegates. Add in Alabama's 45, and you have what amounts to a south central regional primary offering 170 delegates. (The numbers exclude the three uncommitted superdelegate seats allocated to each state's RNC representatives.)

Despite a much greater population, California has the same number of delegates, a consequence of the party's overall lack of success in statewide races there. California gets one bonus delegate (for winning the Governor's Mansion); Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma have a total of 55 bonus delegates.

(Arizona and Utah are inconsequential -- likely locks for McCain and Romney, respectively.)

While California was a winner-take-all state in years past, in 2008, there will be 54 separate elections. Three delegates will be allocated in each congressional district to the candidate with a plurality. The winner of the statewide tally will get an additional 11 seats. There's an incentive for an underfunded candidate to focus on winning in just one of California's media markets, while spending more time and money in the less expensive, more compact south central states.

So there are already plenty of strategic reasons for presidential hopefuls to spend plenty of time in Oklahoma. If HB 2095 passes the State Senate, Oklahoma would become even more important, leaping ahead of South Carolina by four days to become the second primary on the calendar, just a week after New Hampshire.

Of course, any other state might move its date, too, if there is still time for its legislature to act. In some states, legislatures have authorized the governor or the state's chief election official to move the date in response to the actions of other states, whether or not the legislature is in session.

LINKS: The Green Papers has a wealth of information about the 2008 primary process, including a chronological calendar of primaries, caucuses, and conventions, which in turn has links to details on each state's rules, delegate allocations for the Republicans and Democrats, showing the allocation formula used by each party. There is also a table showing who is eligible to participate in delegate selection and what allocation method is used for each state for both Republicans and Democrats. Each state page includes notes on legislation affecting the date of the primary.

The fact that the Green Papers got Oklahoma's legislative information wrong makes me wonder about the reliability of their other information, however. They have this:

Oklahoma HB 1790 was amended on 7 February 2007 to change the Presidentail Primary date from the first Tuesday in February (5 February 2008) to the first Saturday in February (2 February 2008).

HB 1790 is actually Rep. John Trebilcock's very sensible bill to reduce the number of permitted special election dates from 21 to 14 in every two-year cycle. Unfortunately HB 1790 didn't make it out of committee. I can't find any legislation that would move the primary to a Saturday.

The Daily Oklahoman has been covering the latest developments in the investigation of illegal campaign contributions involving former State Sen. Gene Stipe of McAlester and other powerful Democrats in state government. I don't have time to try to sort through the tangled mess tonight, but here are links to the Oklahoman's series. (Free registration is required:

March 7: "FBI agents Wednesday searched the offices of former state Sen. Gene Stipe and his accountant, apparently looking for evidence linking Stipe to a pet food plant that is under grand jury investigation." Computers from Stipe's offices were loaded into an FBI van. McAlester's National Pet Food Plant belonged to Stipe's business partner Steve Phipps. Phipps and Stipe were partners in an abstracting company in Antlers in southeastern Oklahoma.

March 8: A more detailed version of the initial report, including more of an explanation about the activities of Phipps that are under investigation:

An FBI agent's affidavit used to obtain that search warrant alleged Phipps made three ex-legislators — Mike Mass, Randall Erwin and Jerry Hefner — partners in a gambling machine company, Indian Nation Entertainment. The FBI claims that partnership was in return for the legislators' help in obtaining state money for Phipps' other interests, including a not-for-profit foundation called Rural Development Foundation.

The dog food plant ultimately got $1.1 million of money earmarked for Rural Development Foundation, in addition to $419,000 in state money that Mass directed through the quasi-private McAlester Foundation, records show.

The Oklahoman previously reported Stipe profited from the sale of property on which the plant was built.

Records show Oklahoma taxpayer money was used in 2002 to buy property from Stipe, which allowed him to repay a $50,000 loan that had been illegally funneled into the congressional campaign of Walt Roberts.

The property in question was essentially a warehouse that Stipe and Roberts bought in 2001 for about $75,000 as a possible auction house for Roberts. A year later, the McAlester Foundation, using city and state tax money, bought the property from Stipe for $190,000, records show.

The article goes on to remind readers that Mass, who is also a former chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, admitted to being a straw donor for Stipe, passing along money contributed by Stipe in a way that avoided public scrutiny and campaign contribution limits.

Looks like everyone got their back scratched with the help of taxpayer funds.

March 9: "Former state Sen. Gene Stipe continued to illegally fund congressional campaigns through straw donors as recently as 2004, even while on house arrest for the same thing in a 1998 campaign, an FBI agent said in an affidavit that was unsealed Thursday in Muskogee." One of the recipients of straw donations was Congressman Dan Boren. Another was State Auditor and Inspector Jeff McMahan. This article features quotes from some of the straw donors used to hide illegal contributions from Stipe.

March 9: State Reps. Mass, Hefner, and Erwin earmarked nearly $2.3 million in Rural Development Foundation money for Steve Phipps for construction of the National Pet Foods Plant. Looks an awful lot like a quid pro quo -- they get government money for Phipps; Phipps sets them up to make a living when they are term-limited out of office.

March 10: Straw donors also funneled money from Stipe to Gov. Brad Henry, State Rep. Mike Mass, and McMahan.

Some state employees served as straw donors to Boren's campaign, including the head of the department in the State Auditor's office that oversees abstracting companies (recall that Stipe and Phipps were partners in an abstracting company) and an employee of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.

March 12: State Republican Chairman Tom Daxon, himself a former State Auditor and Inspector, called on State Auditor Jeff McMahan and his deputy, Tim Arbaugh, to resign. McMahan was the beneficiary of illegal contributions from Stipe, and Arbaugh was used to pass illegal Stipe contributions to Congressman Boren.

Keep an eye on the Daily Oklahoman's local news page and Mike McCarville's blog for further developments. (Here's McCarville's article on the "smoking gun" affidavit tying Stipe and Phipps to Boren and McMahan.) Jeff Shaw of Bounded Rationality has some commentary here.

UPDATE: See-Dubya, a native son of Stipeland, has a terrific description of Gene Stipe:

If you could see the guy and hear him speak for a minute--taking in the flapping jowls, the sanctimonious drone, the Yosemite Sam diction--you couldn't help but size up former Oklahoma State Senator Gene Stipe accurately. He's Boss Hogg and Kingfish and every caricatured stereotypical Southern machine politician you've seen rolled up into one smarmy package. And despite retiring from Oklahoma's State Senate and a subsequent campaign finance conviction, Stipe's still making himself felt in Oklahoma politics.

He's also got a quote from Mark Singer, who wrote the definitive profile of Stipe in the April 2, 1979, edition of the New Yorker.

Singer continues, "'Let's say I pick up a Smith & Wesson double-action .22-calibre revolver on a .32 frame with a four-inch barrel and plant one right between your eyes,' a man in Latimer County once said to me, in what I decided to regard as an utterly speculative and friendly tone of voice. 'Now, if I've got a brain in my head, all I need to do is drop the gun and borrow a dime and call Gene Stipe. And I'm pretty sure he can find me a jury of my peers that believes in the good old "Judge not, that ye be not judged." ' "

If that can be believed, Gene Stipe, like his fellow Oklahoma lawyer Moman Pruiett did decades earlier, "made it safe to murder."

Mike McCarville has discovered something interesting about State Sen. Mary Easley from an amendment to her mileage reimbursement claims:

Tuesday's Senate Journal lists mileage reimbursement for Easley and it shows "Tulsa 230 (miles)" and "$111.55" reimbursement. The "230" and "$111.55" are marked out, however, and replaced with "336" (miles) and "$162.96."

McCarville points out that 230 miles is the right distance for a round trip from the Capitol to Owasso -- where the phone book lists her as living, even though it's in Randy Brogdon's district -- but too far for the round trip between the Capitol and east Tulsa, where Easley was registered to vote last summer. 336 is what Google Maps gives for a round trip between the State Capitol and Grand Lake Towne, where Easley and her husband Truman registered to vote on October 2. (Records show that neither of them actually voted in that precinct, 490031. They are no longer registered to vote in Tulsa County, so it's not clear where they voted. I can't imagine that they wouldn't vote when her name was on the ballot.)

I doubt she changed the mileage for the sake of $50, but she might have changed it in order to keep her stories straight.

In the February issue of Gentleman's Quarterly there's a lengthy and generally positive profile of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, focusing on his campaign against wasteful spending.

This early paragraph in the piece illustrates the myopia of many in Washington:

But for many of Coburn’s colleagues, what is most surprising is not that he has become a thorn in the party’s side; it’s the issue with which he has made his mark. Back in 2004, when Coburn was first running for Senate, fiscal prudence wasn’t supposed to be his issue. In fact, the last thing anybody expected him to become was a voice of restraint in a body of excess. If anything, Coburn was the one known for his excesses, for making pronouncements so outrageous, so far from the mainstream, that at times he seemed like a cartoon of the fanatical right—declaring his own Senate race “the battle of good versus evil,” calling for “the death penalty for abortionists,” and suggesting that the country was under attack by a secret gay conspiracy that had “infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country.” Back in 2004, Tom Coburn was the last man anybody expected to rise above politics and try to lead us back to common sense.

Anybody, that is, except the voters of Oklahoma. Yes, his most enthusiastic supporters shared his concerns on social issues, but it was his determination to fight against waste and corruption that differentiated him from his nearest Republican rival, Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys. Anyone who paid attention to his service in the U. S. House, anyone who bothered to read his no-punches-pulled book Breach of Trust would have known that his willingness to stand firm and, if necessary, alone, on fiscal issues are at the heart of why Oklahoma Republicans urged him to run and why he decided to get in the race.

The article covers his medical practice, growing up helping with his dad's business, his living arrangements in Washington, and this about the connection between his social positions and his fiscal stubborness:

Having entered the public spotlight for his social positions, far from the mainstream and widely condemned for his views on abortion and gay rights, he had long since adjusted to the outrage and indignation he aroused. If anything, his social views had bolstered him for the fiscal fight. In a world as upside down as Congress, where waste is the norm and prudence on the fringe, where a man fighting pork and fraud can be ostracized by his peers, maybe it takes someone who is comfortable with that, and has spent most of his adult life on the fringe already, to speak out in spite of the risks.

Go read the whole thing.

(Via Mike McCarville.)

Here is the latest news on precinct elections for the Tulsa County Republican Party, which are scheduled for tonight, from Tulsa County Republican Chairman Jerry Buchanan:

The bi-annual Republican Party Precinct Caucuses will still be held Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in Tulsa County. However, some Precinct Chairmen of the 262 precincts in Tulsa County will have the opportunity to hold their bi-annual Caucus through next Tuesday, Jan. 23rd due to the road conditions from the weather.

Republicans should contact their Precinct Chairman or the Republican Headquarters for further information Tuesday from 1:00 until 4:00 for more information if they are unsure of the time and date of their Precinct Caucus.

Due to the many calls and email to the Republican Headquarters with concerns to icy conditions, Jerry Buchanan, Chairman of the Tulsa County Republican Party, has asked Precinct Chairmen to evaluate the situation in their own Precincts and contact those in their Precincts if they wish to change their meeting dates and times.

The Republican Headquarters can be reached by phone at 627-5702 or email at chairman@tulsagop.org.

If you are a registered Republican voter in Oklahoma, you're entitled to participate in precinct elections. If you're a Republican who cares about the direction of the party, about its strategies and tactics, about its principles and positions, you need to participate in precinct elections.

Republican precinct elections occur three of every four years and are the first stage in a multiple-stage process for electing party leaders and establishing a party platform. Precinct officers are elected and resolutions are considered for inclusion in the party platform. The precinct also elects delegates to attend the county convention, although typically a precinct will vote to be an "open delegation," so that anyone who wishes may be a delegate to the county convention.

The next step in the process is a county convention. In odd-numbered years the county convention elects a chairman and vice-chairman, along with the county's two representatives on the state Republican committee (the governing body of the Oklahoma Republican Party), and the county's two representatives on the 1st Congressional District committee. The county convention also votes on a platform which deals with local, state, and national issues.

The final step in odd-numbered years is a state convention, at which a state chairman and vice-chairman are elected and a state party platform is approved.

(In presidential years, there is also a congressional district convention which elects delegates and alternates to the national convention, and the state convention elects the state's two representatives on the Republican National Committee and chooses at-large delegates and alternates.)

Precinct elections are usually held in the home of the precinct chairman. Typically they last an hour or so, and most of that time is spent considering resolutions for inclusion in the party platform. All resolutions approved by a precinct election are forwarded to the county convention's platform committee, which assembles the planks supplied by the precincts into a coherent platform.

I particularly want to emphasize the opportunity to influence the platform. It can be a tool for holding our elected Republican officials accountable, for expressing the collective opinion of the Republican grassroots. Historically, the local section of the platform has been rather brief as Republican activists have tended to focus on social, economic, and defense issues at the state and federal levels. If you feel we shouldn't raise taxes for river development, for example, this is a way to make that opinion heard.

To find out where your precinct election is being held, contact the Tulsa County Republican HQ at 627-5702.

Even if you can't attend a precinct election, you can still participate in the later stages of the process by signing up as a county delegate through the end of the week, by contacting your precinct chairman or Republican Party HQ at the above number. (This is assuming your precinct votes to send an open delegation to the county convention, which is almost always the case.)

Why exactly should the state subsidize the construction of half-million dollar luxury lakeside condominiums?

An enterprising participant in the tulsatime LiveJournal group worried when she saw a Request for Proposals on the Oklahoma State Election Board website for a "Telecommunications-based Statewide Voting System." Would this mean a switch from our reliable optical-scan ballot system to a touchscreen system? The link to the RFP was broken, so she wrote OSEB and asked what this was all about. The reply is reassuring:

Identical mark-sense optical scan voting devices manufactured by the Business Records Corporation (now Election Systems & Software) have been used in every precinct in the State of Oklahoma since 1992. As you know, these devices read paper ballots marked in the voter's own hand and preserve a complete and perfect paper audit trail. We do not have any plans to replace our optical scanners with direct recording electronic (touchscreen) devices, or with voting devices of any other type.

So what's this about a "telecommunications-based" voting system? It will allow a vision-impaired voter to go to his polling place, listen to an audio ballot on a telephone and vote by pressing buttons on a keypad. But the vote doesn't get recorded electronically:

The voting system then produces a marked paper ballot, which is scanned and read back to the voter, allowing the voter to confirm whether the paper ballot has been marked according to the way he or she voted. After the voter confirms that the ballot is correct, his or her vote is cast, and a paper ballot is tabulated by the same mark-sense optical scanning voting device used by all other voters statewide.

Here's the really clever bit (emphasis added):

Oklahoma's telephone voting system features a fundamental and innovative improvement over direct recording electronic (touchscreen) voting systems, including even those that provide accommodative telephone keypad input devices and voter verifiable receipts. Typically, a touchscreen voting device in audio mode will read back a voter's marked ballot, but the information read back to the voter is merely that which exists in the device's memory. The readback may confirm the voter's selections, but there is no way to say that the vote eventually cast is the same as that voted by the voter or read back by the voting device. But with Oklahoma's system, it is the paper ballot generated by the system that is scanned and read back to the voter, and it is the paper ballot that is tabulated by our mark-sense optical scanners, preserving the complete and perfect paper audit trail that most Oklahoma voters seem to prefer.

Hats off to the Oklahoma State Election Board for recognizing what makes our system so good and extending that principle in accommodating the right of vision-impaired voters to cast a secret ballot. That kind of perspicacity is a rare thing in government.

(Nevertheless, I'm still hoping for a scanner upgrade that will accommodate a preferential ballot. And for OSEB to put precinct-by-precinct results on their website.)

Following in former City Councilor Randy Sullivan's footsteps, Oklahoma State Sen. Mary Easley, a Democrat representing District 18 , which stretches from east Tulsa to the western shores of Grand Lake (PDF map), no longer lives in her district. She lives in District 34, represented in the State Senate by Randy Brogdon. Senate Republican leader Glenn Coffee issued the following press release today:

MARY EASLEY NOW LIVES IN SENATOR RANDY BROGDON'S DISTRICT

OWASSO - State Senator Mary Easley no longer lives in her Senate District and now resides at 19009 Knightsbridge in Owasso, which is located in Senate District 34.

Senate Republican Leader Glenn Coffee said Easley is skirting state election laws by living in another Senate district while running for reelection in District 18.

"Mary Easley now resides at an Owasso address in Senate District 34. She is clearly skirting state election laws by living at her new address while running for office and voting using an old address," Coffee said.

Coffee said State Senator Randy Brogdon, who represents Owasso in the Oklahoma Senate, has sighted Easley on numerous occasions while he has campaigned in Owasso this year.

"Senator Brogdon was understandably surprised to learn that Mary Easley is now one of his constiuents," said Coffee.

State law requires legislative candidates to reside in the districts in which they run for office. But Easley and her husband now live at their Owasso home, even though Easley is running for reelection using an old address in east Tulsa.

"Mary Easley has left her district behind. How can she represent the people of District 18 when she doesn't even want to live there?" Coffee stated.

BACKGROUND:

Sources:

Southwestern Bell Yellow-Pages
Rogers County Property Taxes

The funny thing about this is that the existing district lines were drawn in 2001 to the specifications of Mary Easley and her son Kevin Easley, whom she succeeded as State Senator. Mary had represented House District 78 since 1996, and with Kevin approaching term limits, Mary had the HD 78 lines redrawn to overlap SD 18, to allow her to replace him. Surely she could have had the lines for SD 18 drawn to include the location of her dream home in Owasso, too.

There is a state law (51 O. S. 8) that causes a seat to become vacant if an elected official moves out of the district that elected her. It isn't clear who has the power to make that determination.

But the voters of SD 18 could make that determination themselves, and deny Mary Easley another term in office.

(The campaign flyer scan you see above was found at oksenatedemocrats.com, which has scans of all the mail pieces that both campaigns have sent out, flavored with Democratic spin, of course. Very interesting if you like the nuts and bolts of campaigns.)

Here are links to the websites for candidates for District Judge and Associate District Judge on the ballot in Tulsa County.

(Added on November 4: Party registration, as of the date of filing. Although judicial races are non-partisan, voter registration is a matter of public record, and I believe the public has a right to know it, as one more piece of information to weigh. At a national level, Republicans and Democrats have different ideological approaches to the role of the judiciary, and party registration may be an indication of a judge's ideology.)

Office 1 (elected from Tulsa and Pawnee Counties, replacing retiring Judge Ronald Shaffer):

Cliff Smith (D)
Bill Kellough (D)

Office 4 (elected from electoral district 4 in Tulsa County, replacing retiring Judge David Peterson):

Jim Caputo (R)
Daman Cantrell (D)

Office 8 (elected from electoral district 5 in Tulsa County; Thornbrugh is the incumbent):

Tom Thornbrugh (R)
Gregg Graves (D)

Office 10 (elected from Tulsa and Pawnee Counties, replacing Judge Gregory Frizzell, who has been nominated to be a Federal judge):

Deirdre Dexter (R)
Mary Fitzgerald (R)

Office 13 (elected from Tulsa and Pawnee Counties; Shallcross is the incumbent):

Jonathan Sutton (R)
Deborah Shallcross (D) (warning: obnoxious Flash video and sound plays automatically)

Tulsa County Associate District Judge (Wall is the incumbent):

Dana Kuehn (R)
Caroline Wall (R)

And here's my attempt at explaining the various ways we elect the 14 District Judges that serve Tulsa and Pawnee Counties.

This page, on the website of the Tulsa County Democratic Party's website, features endorsements by individual Democrats -- elected officials, former candidates, party officials, and other activists -- of candidates for District Judge. I'm not aware of an equivalent page featuring Republican opinions, although you will find lists of endorsers on most of the judicial candidate websites.

There is this disclaimer at the top of the page:

The following are endorsements for judicial candidates in Tulsa County by Democrats registered in Tulsa County. Judicial candidates stand for election on a non-partisan basis. Party affiliation should not be a factor in these races. We have included the endorsements for those who are not familiar with the judicial candidates, so you can learn about them by reading the opinions of Democrats that you do know. The Tulsa County Democratic Party is not endorsing any of the following candidates.

In several races, there are endorsers for both candidates, and it's interesting to read the reasons given for supporting a candidate. Most candidates seem to get bipartisan support, so if you're a conservative Republican like me, don't assume that a judicial candidate backed by a liberal Democrat would be unacceptable to you.

A friend with a worried expression on her face stopped me at church today to ask the above question. I told her -- and those of you with the same question -- to stay tuned to batesline.com. Starting tomorrow night, I'll be writing about statewide, legislative, and Tulsa County races, state questions. My Urban Tulsa Weekly column, out this Wednesday, will deal with the judicial retention ballot and the local district court races. I've got plenty of material to share, and this week will be devoted to putting that information in your hands.

There's one statewide race that ought to matter more than any other to Oklahoma voters. That's the race for a seat on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. In addition to overseeing Oklahoma's oil and gas industry, the OCC regulates public utilities like PSO, ONG, and AT&T (formerly Southwestern Bell).

Considering the amount of money at stake in the OCC's decisions on utility rates, the commission is ripe for corruption. And indeed, in the late '80s and early '90s, the FBI investigated bribery allegations involving the OCC. Corporation Commissioner Bob Hopkins, a Democrat, was convicted of bribery and sent to jail, as was utility lobbyist Bill Anderson. The culture of corruption at the OCC was cracked open because, in 1989, a newly-elected commissioner went to Feds when Anderson offered him cash.

That commissioner was Bob Anthony, a man of honesty and fairness. In Anthony, Oklahoma's utility ratepayers have someone who is looking out for their interests. Regulated companies, whether large or small, get a fair shake from Bob Anthony.

In 1995, Bob Anthony received an award from the FBI for his involvement in the corruption investigation. (Click that link for the text of his commendation.)

During his campaign, an attorney who practiced before the Commission greeted him with a handshake that contained an envelope with ten $100 bills. Mr. Anthony contacted the United States Attorney's office and agreed to participate and work with the FBI as a cooperative and covert witness. He knew at that time that his role would certainly be revealed at trial, and that the eventual proceedings in court might damage his ability not only to be a public servant, but to work in any public service career in the state of Oklahoma. The investigation which he caused, supported and worked in lasted approximately six years. Evidence which he developed involved illegal payments of $10,000. He made over 150 tape recordings that helped broaden the scope of the case to include another fellow commissioner and a local telephone company.

By 1992, word of the investigation and Mr. Anthony's cooperation had reached the news media. Determined to meet his duty as an elected public servant, he publicly commented on the case, explaining his part, but only to the extent required to fulfill his public duties. As a result of his inability to comment fully on the case, because he intended to protect the integrity of the investigation, the press had a field day with respect to him and his own reputation. For over two years he was featured as a "snitch" and a political opportunist, as well as being the subject of several leading cartoonists for the media. It wasn't until the case went to trial in 1994 that the full story was revealed and Mr. Anthony was vindicated when the full facts of his cooperation, dedication and sacrifice were announced in a public forum. In the interim, his campaign for a seat in the United States House of Representatives was defeated and he only narrowly won reelection to the Commission itself.

In the end, two subjects were convicted of bribery, and a clear message was sent to the leadership of both the business and political communities of Oklahoma that such conduct would not be tolerated. Mr. Anthony, by this award, joins a very select group of awardees who exemplify the tremendous courage and sacrifice that people have shown--particularly people who have put themselves and their families' welfare at jeopardy to do the right thing to support an investigation. That is a critically important commitment--when one puts his own life and welfare directly on the line. It is only with that premise and support and cooperation that the FBI, or any law enforcement organization, can do the job it is supposed to do, which is protect the people.

In 2000, Anthony was elected to a third term with the highest number of votes in Oklahoma history. This year, he's being challenged by former Corporation Commissioner Cody Graves.

Cody Graves is a big baby. In January 1995, a pay raise approved by the Legislature for elected officials went into effect, but under the Oklahoma Constitution, a pay raise isn't allowed to go into effect in the middle of an executive officer's term. Corporation Commissioner's terms are six years, staggered so only one is up for election every two years. Anthony asked for and received an Attorney General's opinion clarifying that the Legislature could not nullify that provision of the Constitution. The ruling meant that Graves would not get the raise until January 1999. (Anthony would not be eligible until January 2001.)

Graves was so angry at the ruling he quit. Graves then became a lobbyist for the very companies he had been regulating.

So what do you think, Oklahoma? Shall we replace a man of principle and courage with someone who is evidently motivated by money above all else?

I was disgusted, but not surprised, to learn today that Graves has been endorsed by former Corporation Commissioners J. C. Watts and Ed Apple, both Republicans, along with all other living former commissioners, all Democrats. (Presumably Commissioner Hopkins, the convicted felon, is dead and could not be reached for comment.) Given that Democrat former commissioners were in office when the culture of corruption was in full swing, it's no wonder that they'd want Anthony out of office, since his courage put a stop to the walking-around money. During Apple's time in office, he was a consistent vote for whatever the utilities and the big energy companies wanted.

As for J. C. Watts, a web search turned up this about Watts' election to and tenure on the Corporation Commission. On March 1, 1991, the FBI recorded a phone conversation between Watts and Bill Anderson, then representing the interests of independent telephone companies. This was at a time when Bob Anthony was pushing for 35-mile toll-free calling zones in each of Oklahoma's metro areas, a move opposed by these small-town phone companies who derived a lot of revenue from town-to-town tolls. In the conversation, Anderson discusses arrangements for delivering $1,500 to Watts, in advance of a March 6 cutoff for campaign contributions to his 1990 campaign account. Anderson had a practice of bundling cash contributions with a long enough list of names that it could be claimed that each name had given $200, the threshold for public reporting of a campaign contribution.

Watts was with State Rep. Kevin Cox that day:

Anderson said "And hell, I'll just, if he's with you, you just come to the door and I'll just hand you the cash. Kevin needn't know. You, just tell him you need to come by and get a message from me or something."

Later that day, FBI agents observed Watts coming to Anderson's house. Watts told the FBI that he didn't recall picking up a contribution from Anderson. Perhaps he was borrowing a cup of sugar.

The good ol' boys, Republicans and Democrats alike, aren't happy that there's someone on the Corporation Commission who has this as his mission statement:

On January 9, 1989 I accepted a position of public trust and took a constitutional oath to enforce the law, supervise rates, correct abuses, and prevent extortion and discrimination by regulated companies.

The rest of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, need to give Bob Anthony another six-year term to look out for our best interests.

MORE:

Here is a PBS Frontline interview with Bob Anthony about his cooperation with the FBI in the Corporation Commission bribery investigation.

(Anthony makes reference in the interview to a case before the commission involving Nora and Eugene Lum, associates of Bill Clinton, and the main subjects of the Frontline episode. Here are statements from Nolanda Butler Hill and Stephen Dresch about the case, which connects to late Commerce Secretary and DNC chairman Ron Brown, Clinton adviser Mack McLarty, and one-time Democratic 1st District congressional candidate Stuart Price.)

Here is a table showing the membership of the OCC since statehood.

Here's a 1999 article by, of all people, Oklahoma Observer editor Frosty Troy, detailing Anthony's achievements.

(I have to take issue with the comparison of Anthony to Henry Bellmon. Anthony is beloved by grassroots Republicans, while Bellmon earned their distrust on issues like the Panama Canal and higher taxes. Anthony gets standing ovations, not boos or hisses, at Republican conventions.)

Anthony's website includes a sweet trip down memory lane, recalling his first campaign in 1988, traveling Oklahoma accompanied by his wife and four school-aged daughters.

OU poli-sci professor Keith Gaddie has done a statewide poll for TVPoll.com and Oklahoma City's News 9. The sample size was 921, which gives a margin of error of +/-3.23%.

You've probably already heard a summary of the results, but you can also download the details of the poll, including extensive crosstabs, which break the results down by sex, congressional district, political party registration, ideology, and support for President Bush (who has, by the way, a 57% approval rating in Oklahoma). There's also a thorough disclosure of the methodology used.

Some notes:

• Brad Henry has a 65% approval rating, Istook has a 50% favorability rating statewide. Henry leads Istook, 59.5 to 33.2, with a tiny 7.3% undecided.
• Attorney General Drew Edmondson is the only other candidate with more than 50% in this poll.
• There's a strong partisan split on all the races except for governor, attorney general, and corporation commission -- Henry and Edmondson have the support of 28% and 25% of Republicans respectively, while Bob Anthony has the support of 25% of the Democrats.
• 43% of the sample identified as very or somewhat conservative -- almost evenly divided between the two choices, 22% as very or somewhat liberal, 33% as moderate.
• 61% said they attend church at least once a week.
• In the strongly Republican 1st Congressional District, Henry leads Istook 55-36, Askins leads Hiett 49-41, and Edmondson leads Dunn 54-33. Treasurer Scott Meacham and his challenger Howard Barnett are in a dead heat in CD 1.
• Even among very conservative voters, Henry has a 48% approval rating.

I'm proud to call John Trebilcock a friend and proud to have been a part of his campaign team in 2002, when he won a come-from-behind runoff victory in House District 98. (His district includes the area where I grew up and where my parents still live.) He is one of the most intelligent and honorable people I know in Oklahoma politics, and I am glad he is seeking a third term.

The Tulsa Beacon is glad, too -- from the July 14, 2006, issue:

Vote for Rep. John Trebilcock

State Rep. John Trebilcock is a young man with excellent experience, a solid Christian faith and a record of service in government.

Trebilcock, an assistant majority floor leader, serves on several key committees, including Appropriations and Budget Subcommittee - Public Safety & Judiciary.

Trebilcock was born and raised in Oklahoma. After graduating from Oklahoma State University with a degree in education, he taught in public schools before earning a law degree from The University of Tulsa.

When he is not doing legislative work, he works in business development for Oklahoma National Bank.

Trebilcock has been right in the middle of the conservative revolution in the House of Representatives for the last two sessions. After an 80-year-lapse, the Republicans took control of the House and the process changed.

Bills that would never get past liberal Democrat committee chairman before are now coming up for a floor vote and passing. Conservative Democrats, frustrated by their own party for years, are finding new allies with the Republicans.

The beneficiaries of this new openness in government are the citizens of Oklahoma.

Trebilcock has a rare blend of experience in education, law and business. Oklahoma needs him and his expertise to continue the conservative momentum and as a balance to the decades-old control of the Oklahoma Senate by liberal Democrat leaders.

With Brad Henry as governor, the Legislature needs all the conservatives it can get. If Republicans can gain control of the Senate in November, it will be the first time in history for the GOP to control the House and the Senate.

Trebilcock is doing a great job and deserves another term.

The Tulsa Beacon endorses John Trebilcock in House District 98.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'll add that John, like most of our Tulsa Republican delegation, is one of the fair dealers, not the wheeler-dealers, in the legislature. We need him back, and we need more like him.

...if I'm going to comment on the election results, the answer is yes, but I'm too tired to think right now. Had a short night last night, and spent this evening playing "Sorry" and otherwise hanging out with the family.

In the meantime, the other Tulsa Bloggers have a lot of new stuff out. Be sure to check out meeciteewurkor's local headlines page.

What does it tell you when a Republican candidate for State House, a first-time candidate with no public track record, refuses to expose himself to direct public scrutiny?

Fred Jordan refused to fill out the Oklahoma Republican Assembly questionnaire.

Over the weekend, KRMG invited Fred Jordan and Chris Medlock to appear separately on Joe Kelley's Monday morning show. Chris Medlock accepted and appeared. Fred Jordan refused. Not only did Jordan refuse, when he was told that Medlock would be on the air whether or not Jordan accepted the opportunity, Jordan complained that that was unfair.

Fred Jordan had set up an interview with the Tulsa Beacon, but cancelled it.

Fred Jordan refused an opportunity to debate Chris Medlock on Charlie Biggs' talk show on KCFO.

What does it tell you?

Several people have e-mailed asking for my picks in this Republican runoff election. Fortunately, in all the races that have runoffs, my primary pick made it, so that makes matters simple. The links below will lead you to the candidate's website.

Now that the Republican Party is nearing total control of the Oklahoma legislature, two factions are emerging: the fair-dealers and the wheeler-dealers. The fair-dealers believe that government should focus on basic infrastructure and services and to provide the legal framework for the free market to work. The wheeler-dealers want to use government's power to benefit their own businesses and to put their competition at a disadvantage. Some of the fierce primary contests are representative of the struggle between those two factions.

Lt. Governor: Scott Pruitt has a sharp mind and firm conservative convictions. I'm impressed by his vision for making the most of the Lt. Governor's powers to advance a conservative agenda. While I appreciate the way Todd Hiett led the Republican Party to the majority in the State House, I share the disappointment of many Republican legislators in the huge budget increase and the relatively paltry tax cut achieved under his leadership.

House District 69: Chris Medlock. Medlock would strengthen the ranks of the fair-dealers in the Legislature, not only by replacing one who's there now (Fred Perry), but by helping to stiffen the spines of his colleagues who may be wilting under the pressure of the wheeler-dealers. As a councilor Medlock demonstrated the ability to build support to advance the agenda by increments, reaching across partisan and ideological boundaries to get important legislation like the ethics ordinance and the eminent domain moratorium passed. His opponent can't seem to take the heat and is hiding behind an expensive radio and direct mail campaign.

County Commission District 1: Anna Falling. While John Smaligo would also be a vast improvement over the incumbent, Wilbert Collins, I think Anna Falling would be the better choice. She has been tried by fire and would be willing to take the heat that is bound to come if county government is reformed the way it needs to be. Her proactive approach to government is what we need at this time in the County's history. That said, I'm impressed with some of the things Smaligo has said about the bridge deal (that the County was leasing its power of eminent domain to a private business) and about Vision 2025 (the extra $45 million for the arena will really cost taxpayers $56 million, because of bond interest).

County Commission District 3: Fred Perry is a solid conservative, as honest as the day is long and has a long list of legislative achievements during his years in the State House, not least of which is a transportation bill (an effort led by Mark Liotta) that doubles spending on roads and bridges without raising taxes.

Here are links to the Urban Tulsa Weekly columns I've written on these races:

August 17 issue: Tulsa County Commission

July 20 issue: County races (brief Tulsa County Commission endorsements at the end of the column about the DA's race)

July 13 issue: House races (including District 69)

July 6 issue: Statewide races (including the Lt. Governor's race

The Tulsa County Election Board has links to the sample ballots for each precinct. If you don't know your precinct number, you can look it up using the Election Board's precinct locator.

The most powerful way you can help your favorite candidates is to go through your address book and call friends who live in the district, making a personal recommendation.

Every Republican and Democrat in Oklahoma will be able to vote on Tuesday in the Lt. Governor's race.

County Commission District 1 includes Skiatook, Sperry, Turley, Owasso, and Collinsville, plus north Tulsa, east Tulsa, and a bit of north Broken Arrow.

County Commission District 3 includes Bixby, Broken Arrow, far south Tulsa and midtown Tulsa roughly between Lewis and Yale.

House District 69 includes all of Jenks, most of Glenpool, a small part of Bixby southeast of 111th and Sheridan, and part of the Tulsa zip codes 74136 and 74137. The ORU campus is also in this district, and the students are back on campus just in time for this runoff.

From the cutting-room floor: In putting together last week's Urban Tulsa Weekly column, I decided to concentrate on the two County Commission runoffs, races that only got a brief mention in my pre-primary columns. For the sake of space, I cut my original intro, which included a look at interesting runoffs elsewhere in Oklahoma. Here it is.

Both parties have a statewide runoff for lieutenant governor: State Rep. Jari Askins vs. Pete Regan for the Democratic nomination, Speaker of the House Todd Hiett vs. State Sen. Scott Pruitt on the Republican ballot.

Based on Gaddie�s 40+5 rule, Pruitt and Regan have steep hills to climb. According to Keith Gaddie, a poli-sci prof at OU and the proprietor of soonerpolitics.com, when the leading candidate pulls at least 40% in the runoff and leads the second place candidate by at least 5%, he wins the runoff 95% of the time.

Still, Pruitt has garnered the endorsements of 18 of his 21 Republican Senate colleagues, who have pledged to campaign on his behalf in their home districts. And Regan has Barry Switzer on his side. Switzer�s support was enough to get a bland unknown elected Governor four years ago, so who knows?

And Brad Henry�s 2002 runoff win was one of those one-in-twenty exceptions: He lost the primary to Vince Orza by a 44% to 28% margin.

At the other end of the turnpike, one runoff involves two close relatives of elected officials: Former Governor Frank Keating�s son Chip finished the House District 85 Republican primary just behind David Dank in the race to succeed Dank�s wife Odilia, who is leaving office because of term limits.

In the House 90 race, former State Rep. Charles Key, who lost his seat because of his intense focus on the Oklahoma City bombing grand jury, is trying to get it back, now that his replacement is stepping aside.

Here in Tulsa County, there are runoffs for two open State House seats: Democrats Wayne Guevara and Carl Weston have a runoff in House District 74 (Owasso and Catoosa), and Republicans Chris Medlock and Fred Jordan will face off for House District 69 (south Tulsa and Jenks). It�s an interesting coincidence that the incumbents for those two seats, John Smaligo and Fred Perry, will both be on the ballot the same day, in runoffs for the GOP nominations for Tulsa County Commission Districts 1 and 3, respectively.

Ken Neal in today's Whirled, arguing for forcing the parties to allow independents to vote in their primaries:

Although independents make up 11 percent of registered voters, they account for 20 percent of inactive voters, says Gene Pace, Tulsa County election board secretary.

That's probably because they seldom have a candidate who inspires them. In the July 25 primary election fewer than one half of 1 percent of Tulsa County independents bothered to vote. They could vote only in some of the non-partisan judicial races.

No, Ken, to be an inactive voter you have to have not bothered to vote in over four years. Even if you only turn out to vote for president, you will be on the books as an active voter. The reason for all the inactive independents is Bill Clinton's Motor Voter law, which has resulted in a lot of people being registered to vote who have no interest in voting. Unless these apathetic folks indicate a party preference on the registration form, they are automatically registered as independents.

House District 69 candidate Fred Jordan is still trying to tap-dance his way around the photos taken by Steven Roemerman of a work crew site. On KRMG Friday morning, Jordan was interviewed by Joe Kelley about Jordan's claim that the pictures were "doctored and false."

(Here's an MP3 of Joe Kelley's interview with Fred Jordan. It's about 700 KB, about six minutes in length. Hat tip to David Schuttler.)

Jordan's recorded phone message, sent on Thursday to households in District 69, used Clintonesque phrase-shaping to give the impression that Jordan has no ownership interest in Caprock Homes, the general contractor that is building the home in the picture, and whose sign is visible in the photo. On Roemerman's blog, you can see that the mobile phone number on the Caprock sign at the house matches the phone number on Fred Jordan's business card. It also matches the phone number on Jordan's campaign page on OkInsider.com.

In the KRMG interview, Jordan acknowledged, "Yes, I am one of the owners of Caprock Homes."

When Kelley asked Jordan, in several different ways, "How is that picture doctored?" Jordan never gave a direct answer. On a later attempt, when Kelley said, "But the picture is not doctored." Jordan replied, "Well, the picture does show some Hispanic gentleman sitting in front of a house, but they're not hired by Caprock." He would not give a direct response.

Jordan said that he didn't know who these people were at his worksite. "They might be actors; we don't know who they are."

Jordan's real complaint is that the photos give an impression that he'd rather avoid -- that he hires illegals.

His company Caprock doesn't hire any construction workers at all. Caprock is a general contractor, and they subcontract out all the construction work to other companies. That means that Jordan's company could be benefitting from illegal labor while not being directly responsible for hiring the illegal workers.

If Jordan hires subcontractors without verifying that they hire only legal workers, he is helping to put honest, law-abiding subcontractors out of business.

In the Kelley interview, Jordan mentioned paperwork that he gets from the subcontractors: Proof that the subcontractor carries workers' comp and liability insurance, and the information needed to report payments to the subcontractor to the IRS for tax purposes. None of the documentation he mentions has to do with whether the subcontractor's employees are eligible to work legally in the United States.

A couple of times Jordan said that the Federal government needs to take action to address this problem, but in fact the Federal Government has provided a way for Jordan and his subcontractors to avoid hiring illegal labor. The Basic Employment Verification program is a web-based system, offered by the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (an agency of the Department of Homeland Security) that provides rapid confirmation of an employee's eligibility to work. Although it is a pilot program and voluntary, it is available in all 50 states, free of charge to employers.

Michelle reports that the smears have already begun against Chris Medlock in the House District 69 race, and Fred Jordan is not only calling Medlock a liar, he's impugning the honesty of fellow Tulsa blogger Steven Roemerman:

I got my mail at about 1:30 today and in it there was a mailer from Chris Medlock. It had a picture on it of six Mexican men who appear to be illegals sitting in front of a "Caprock" home. Caprock is owned at least partially by Mr. Fred Jordan, who is running against Mr. Medlock for State House. At almost 3:30, I got a prerecorded phone call from Mr. Jordan claiming this photo was a fauxto. He said it was a fake. Well, so sorry, Mr. Jordan, but it isn�t fake, and I first saw the picture several days ago. It was taken by an honest citizen.

Steve Roemerman has posted the entire sequence of 14 photos that he shot as he drove past this home in south Jenks which is being built by Caprock, Fred Jordan's homebuilding company. Although there were no doubt some contrast adjustments and cropping done for the sake of presenting a clear image on the printed material, every key element in the picture -- the workers, the house under construction, and the Caprock sign -- appear in several if not all of the photos, taken as Steve drove past the house.

Here's what Jordan said in his recorded phone call:

In fact, I am amazed that my opponent has sent you a doctored and false picture showing Hispanics hired by a company that I have absolutely no ownership in.

Jordan gives a very lawyerly, nay, Clintonian response. You could take that sentence a couple of different ways.

Possibility 1: Jordan is claiming that he has no ownership in Caprock. I don't know the financial arrangement he has with Kevin Jordan or the other partners in the company, but the phone number on the sign in the photo is identical to the phone number on his campaign's page on okinsider.com.

Possibility 2: Jordan is really saying that the workers in the photo were hired by a subcontractor, a company he hired to do part of the work on the house. The implication is that he can't be considered responsible for these workers if they are illegal.

This is the defense that was often employed by a fictional man in uniform, Sgt. Hans Schultz of Luftstalag 13: "I see no-THING! I know no-THING!" While Jordan may be able to truthfully say that he doesn't have ownership in the subcontractor, that doesn't absolve him of ethical responsibility for whether his subcontractors' employees are legally allowed to work in the United States.

If a general contractor like Fred Jordan simply takes the low bidder everytime he invites bids on part of a homebuilding job (e.g., bricklaying, framing, roofing, landscaping) without ensuring that the low bidder is only hiring legal labor, he gives an insurmountable advantage to subcontractors who break the law. That willful ignorance on the part of the general contractor puts law-abiding subcontractors out of business.

In a May 1, 2006, Tulsa Whirled story, Randy Sissom, who owns a bricklaying business, talked about his struggles trying to operate as a subcontractor who plays by the rules:

Hargrove said when he bids a brick job he can't compete with the price of an all-immigrant crew. Sissom faces the same problem. He usually charges builders about $245 per thousand bricks installed. Immigrant competitors charge about $200 per thousand, he said. Sissom says immigrants, mainly from Mexico, stop by his job site almost on a daily basis looking for work. "They say, 'You pay cash?' " he said.

When they find out he takes out money from their checks to pay taxes they often lose interest, he said. But if they still want the job, Sissom says he makes a copy of any documentation they provide like a Green Card and Social Security card.

Guys like Sissom suffer when general contractors like Jordan turn a blind eye to their subcontractors' illegal hiring practices. A law that fines general contractors for indirectly employing illegal workers would help level the playing field for law-abiding subcontractors. Do you think that, as a state rep, homebuilder Fred Jordan would vote for a law like that? Do you think the developers who have financed his campaign would want him to vote for such a law?

(The title of this post relates to this earlier one, about the misleading last minute tactics used against District Attorney Tim Harris by political consultant Fount Holland, who is the consultant for the Fred Jordan campaign.)

Remember the late, unlamented election for Tulsa County District Attorney? In my Urban Tulsa Weekly column on the race, I examined and refuted the misleading claims being made by challenger Brett Swab about DA Tim Harris's prosecution record.

Swab's negative campaign also included claims about DA office spending on remodeling and furnishings and on a rap song. Here is a large postcard mailer that the Swab campaign sent to Tulsa County voters very close to the primary election:

To say this is misleading is an understatement. Here's the truth regarding the "redecorating" claim:

The truth is that when the new jail was built away from the courthouse, County officials reclaimed the old jail space in the courthouse to build offices for the D.A. This in turn freed up old D.A. offices so that more courtrooms could be built. This was a Tulsa County Commission construction project supervised and financed by County officials - not Tim Harris. This construction project was planned when David Moss was the D.A.

Near the end of the project when resources were stretched, Harris contributed $50,000 from the D.A. budget to the County to finish the construction. This paid for items including sound batting for walls, ceiling work, library bookshelves and fixtures for the bathrooms.

It was Tim Harris� responsibility to furnish and equip the space after it was constructed. Over a number of years, Harris saved $450,000 in fees recovered by his bogus check program to invest in office equipment for 100 employees which included workstations, desks, chairs, computers, and a filing system for 30,000 cases.

Tim Harris also used money from his budget to furnish the Victim-Witness Center, which is a respite area where more than 10,000 victims and witnesses come each year. Harris created separate and safe, pleasant spaces for adults, children and police officers to wait before testifying in court. Framed posters were put in the Victim-Witness Center and in the common waiting areas, conference rooms and hallways of the D.A.�s Office. Despite what the opponent says, framed posters for two separate floors covering 35,000 square feet cost less than $8,500.

The Truth is Tim Harris budgeted funds responsibly in order to furnish a professional law office for the people of Tulsa County.

And the rap song? The DA's office, on behalf of Project Safe Neighborhoods, received a $10,000 grant from the Federal Government earmarked for community outreach to prevent gun violence. The DA's office used the funds to bring Marcus Nelson, Ph. D., a motivational speaker, the keynote speaker at the U. S. Department of Justice-sponsored National Youth Gang Conference. Nelson came to Tulsa spoke to the students of Central High School and Tulsa School of Science and Technology, and met with school staff.

In addition, Dr. Nelson�s performance was videotaped so that his anti-violence message can be shown to every student in Tulsa area schools. Dr. Nelson also produced two versions of an original anti-violence song �T-Town.� He provided an instrumental version that can be used in the fall as part of an anti-violence contest for Tulsa students to write their own anti-violence lyrics.

Why am I bringing all this up again, a month later? Because the same political consultant who orchestrated this unfair and misleading attack on Tim Harris is involved in at least one other race on this Tuesday's runoff ballot. His name is Fount Holland, and he is the consultant for the Fred Jordan campaign for House District 69, and if you live in that district, you shouldn't be surprised to see the same sort of misleading cartoon postcard show up in your mailbox this weekend, attacking Chris Medlock.

Fount Holland was City Hall reporter for the Tulsa Whirled from 1990 to 1995, when he left to become press secretary for newly-elected Congressman Tom Coburn. In 1997, he left to become a political consultant, heading up the Oklahoma Values Coalition, a PAC formed by Coburn and his congressional colleague Steve Largent to help elect conservative candidates to the state legislature.

Holland deserves credit for some significant accomplishments. He is a gifted communicator and his ability to get a message across to the voters has played an important role in helping Republicans win control of the State House.

First with the Oklahoma Values Coalition and then as the exclusive political consultant for the Republican State House Committee, Holland helped Republicans win marginal seats all across Oklahoma. His partner in A. H. Strategies, Karl Ahlgren, Coburn's chief of staff during his tenure in the U. S. House, has had a similar role with the corresponding Senate PAC.

But in recent years, I've noticed a departure from Holland and Ahlgren's roots in Tom Coburn's office.

In 2003, they were consultants to the vote yes campaign for the Vision 2025 sales tax. Bill LaFortune singled them out for praise in his post-election "State of the City Address" that year. I remember how shocked I was at the time that these two, still strongly associated in my mind with Coburn, would be using their skills and connections to sell Republicans on a tax increase to pay for a package of pork projects.

As a lobbyist for Utica Partners, Ahlgren pushed for legislation this year which would have undermined historic preservation and local control of zoning.

Where Holland and Ahlgren were at one time mainly focused on helping Republicans defeat Democrats at the polls, they have increasingly been getting involved in Republican primaries. As noted above, Holland was the consultant for Swab's ugly and deceptive campaign against Tim Harris. Any Republican insider in Oklahoma would recognize Fount Holland's style in the layout of the mailer above.

And increasingly in those primary races, when their candidate is losing ground, they will strike back with some last-minute nastiness. Tim Harris experienced it this year. State Rep. John Trebilcock was hit by it in his runoff with Melissa Mahan in 2002. Expect to see the same sort of thing from the Fred Jordan campaign, attacking Chris Medlock, this weekend.

I'm disappointed that Ahlgren and Holland are using their considerable talents to defeat candidates like Harris, Trebilcock, and Medlock, candidates who resemble their old boss Tom Coburn in political courage and commitment to conservative principles.

But don't get me wrong -- Holland is no Jim Burdge, and I hope he'll turn around before he adopts a do-anything-to-win, work-for-the-highest-bidder ethos.

(Which reminds me: Keep an eye out for a last-minute slime attack against Fred Perry in the County Commission District 3 race this weekend. Perry's opponent, Bill Christiansen, is Jim Burdge's boy in the runoff.)

The Jenks Journal has a story in its latest edition about the impact of the south Tulsa toll bridge as an issue in the House District 69 and Tulsa County Commission District 3 races. In the House 69 race, Chris Medlock opposes the bridge as proposed and has signed the South Tulsa Citizens' Coalition representation letter. His runoff opponent, developer Fred Jordan, did not sign the STCC representation letter. Accordingly, the STCC has endorsed Medlock for House 69:

Mr. Medlock is against the South Tulsa bridge as it is currently proposed and has signed one of STCC�s representation letters. You can learn more about Mr. Medlock�s campaign at www.chrismedlock.com.

STCC does realize that the South Tulsa bridge issue is only one of many issues facing our city, county and state. However, given the candidates� responses and to ensure that your voice continues to be heard with regard to the South Tulsa bridge issue, STCC encourages you to vote for... candidate Medlock in the Oklahoma House District 69 race.

[The elided text refers to the County Commission District 3 election. Click the link above to read the full text.]

Click here to see a screen capture of the STCC's endorsement of Medlock.

In the Jenks Journal, Medlock points out that despite Jordan's protestations, the legislature will be involved in the issues surrounding the proposed toll bridge. As an example, there was a bill before the legislature this year that would have required toll agreements with private companies and similar arrangements to be handled under the Oklahoma Competitive Bidding Act, to prevent insider deals like that between Infrastructure Ventures, Inc. (IVI) and Tulsa County. HB 2740 passed in the House and Senate by a large margin, but a parliamentary maneuver by Sen. Nancy Riley killed the deal.

Here's something I wrote before the primary about the range of issues that the Legislature could and should take up, in order to resolve some of the many legal questions surrounding this bridge scheme.

UPDATE: More hi-Jenks! I received a report from an STCC member who attended the Jenks City Council meeting earlier this week:

The 3 items that came up this evening where Jenks is relying on Tulsa are:

Water Supply: Jenks water pressure has been low recently and thinks the problem is Tulsa�s inadequacy at the Turkey Mountain Tank. They are trying to work towards having Tulsa upgrade the pumping system to solve their problem (Once again...Tulsa cost, Jenks benefit).

Centennial Celebration: Jenks anticipates Tulsa picking up the tab for the fireworks that will be shot off at the 96th street bridge in mid November for the celebration.

Public Transportation Service: Jenks contracts with Tulsa to provide bus service into Jenks. Service also includes handicap transportation needs.

It seems like time and time again the city of Jenks wants to take advantage of Tulsa....and we are just letting them.

Real regionalism is a two-way street, but Tulsa's suburbs seem to expect Tulsa to do all the work and carry all the costs while they reap the benefit, in the form of sales tax growth at Tulsa's expense.

(Unfortunately, Tulsa's previous mayor has made it possible for suburban officials to claim that they've given Tulsa what it wanted by backing the downtown arena as a part of Vision 2025. It may be what the people pressuring Bill LaFortune wanted, but it certainly isn't what Tulsa needed, and it won't offset sweetheart long-term water deals and the like.)

State Sen. Nancy Riley, who represents District 37, announced yesterday that she is leaving the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat. Her stated reasons, according to the Daily Oklahoman:

Riley, who finished third in the Republican primary for lieutenant governor but received enough votes to force a runoff election, said she received little respect from the Senate Republican Caucus and felt her concerns about the party were met with a "pat on the head." ...

She said she received no support from the party during her campaign for lieutenant governor. She was not invited to a debate of Republican candidates for lieutenant governor, she said.

In 1988, I was living in Brookside, which was then in SD 37. The State Senate seat was open -- David Riggs was stepping down -- and no Republican had announced. I actually considered filing, but was I relieved to learn that a former pastor and insurance broker named Jerry Riley had decided to enter the race. I called him and volunteered my help, and he named me the precinct coordinator. I knocked doors for Jerry in Maple Ridge, in Brookside, and on the west side.

It was during that campaign that I got to know Nancy. Nancy and Jerry had just been married a couple of years -- the second marriage for both of them. Nancy had been widowed at a young age. At the time of the campaign, she was not even 30. Jerry ran a good race, but lost to Democrat Lewis Long of Glenpool.

The Rileys and I had limited contact over the next few years -- although I remember visiting their church, then Sandusky Ave. Christian Church in '89 or '90 when my wife and I were looking for a new church home. (Doctrinal differences aside, I couldn't forgive that church for tearing down the Will Rogers Theater for a parking lot.)

In 2000 Nancy Riley decided to run for the same seat against Lewis Long, still firmly ensconced in what was still a majority Democrat seat, although it was swinging to the GOP. (Long had won re-election against Tim Plinsky in 1996 with 54% of the vote.) Jerry managed the campaign. I was happy to be a part of the campaign team. Despite Long's incumbency and deep pockets, Nancy won by 265 votes. After district lines were redrawn, she won re-election in 2004 with 65% of the vote.

In 2002, I hired Jerry to be campaign manager for my second run for City Council. He did a great job, and we got very close, but lost by 700 votes. Nancy helped stamp a last minute mailer, and she knocked doors for me in the area around Hoover Elementary School, where she had been a teacher.

All that history is to explain why Nancy's decision to leave the Republican Party saddens and surprises me for more than merely partisan political reasons.

Still, the political implications can't be ignored. Nancy's defection means the Senate is split 26-22 in the Democrats' favor, undoing the Republican gain in the southwest Oklahoma special election earlier this year. This raises the bar for a Republican takeover, which would be the first time in state history for the GOP to control the Senate and to hold one of the most powerful offices in the state: Senate President Pro Tempore. Nancy's defection makes it more likely that key committees will continue to be controlled by liberal Democratic committee chairman. In the most recent legislature, key leaders and committee heads like Cal Hobson and Bernest Cain were well to the left of even most Democratic legislators and they blocked conservative and moderate legislation that had majority support in both houses. If the Ds keep their hold on the Senate, we can expect more of the same.

It's usual in situations like this that the potential defector is offered a committee chairmanship or some other plum as an inducement to convert. Both parties have done this, especially when gaining or losing a majority is at stake.

Nancy's reasons for switching seem petty and prideful to me, and that's a side of her I hadn't seen before. She seems to think that just because she was female and Republican, female Republican activists owed her their support in her race for Lt. Governor. That's not the way it works. A politician doesn't even have the right to presume that those who backed her for a lower office will support her when she seeks to move up the ladder.

In seeking to be the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor, Nancy Riley put herself up against two formidable, credible opponents. It was her job to persuade individual Republican volunteers and donors to help her make phone calls and raise money. These people are not owned by a party organization, and the party can't parcel them out to ensure that every candidate gets a fair share. If she failed to persuade these grassroots volunteers to help her, she has only herself to blame.

One more thing that surprised me was Nancy's description of herself as a moderate. I had always assumed she was conservative, but now that I look back at her campaign website, I notice that the word isn't present. If she was known not to be a conservative, it's no wonder that Republican activists weren't enthusiastic about helping her, as most of the ones I know get the greatest motivation in helping principled and consistent conservative candidates like Tom Coburn.

The Daily Oklahoman mentioned one issue-based reason for Riley's conversion:

She said there is a movement in the Republican Party to undermine public education with such things as blaming teachers for school problems and pushing for charter schools and vouchers.

I don't hear a lot of blaming of teachers from Republican critics of public education. Most of the blame goes to the curriculum experts, the teacher training process, and the school administrators.

I do hear talk about offering parents real choice in education (and there needs to be less talk and more action). For Riley to complain about charter schools and vouchers means she's more interested in protecting school administrative bureaucracies and less interested in meeting the needs of the students.

Regarding her complaint about debates: She was a full participant in the only Lt. Governor's debate I saw, the one sponsored by the Tulsa County Republican Men's Club.

The Oklahoman item quotes Senate Democratic Leader Mike Morgan as saying Riley approached him in June about switching. So she was campaigning for the Republican nomination for Lt. Governor under false pretenses. At the very least, she should have suspended her campaign.

And she owes her constituents an apology as well. She can't know how many of them voted for her in 2004 because she was the Republican nominee and how many voted for her regardless of party. The honorable thing to do would be to follow Phil Gramm's example:

In 1978 and 1980, he had been elected as a Democrat to Congress. In 1981, he decided to change parties, so he resigned his seat, then ran as a Republican in the special election, letting the people decide whether they wanted him back in Congress as a member of the GOP caucus.

Phil Gramm didn't have to take that step, but it was the honest thing to do. Nancy Riley should give the voters of south and west Tulsa County the right to decide whether they want her back as a Democrat more than they want to help the Republicans win the State Senate.

In the race to replace Judge David Peterson, candidate David Blades chose not to seek a recount. He finished third of three-candidates by only 51 votes out of 11,000 cast. Collinsville Municipal Judge Jim Caputo finished second, making the runoff with Special District Judge Daman Cantrell. Because this is a non-partisan race, the "runoff" will be at the November general election. This is also one of five district judgeships elected by a portion of Tulsa County -- the electoral division for this seat covers the north Tulsa County suburbs and the City of Tulsa roughly east of Sheridan.

There will be a recount in the Republican primary for House District 6, an open seat that covers Craig County and parts of Mayes and Rogers Counties. Wayland Smalley, the Republican nominee for the 2nd Congressional District in 2004, won his primary by five votes out of about 1,500 cast. Whoever prevails will have an uphill battle -- 4,700 Democrats voted in their primary for the seat.

Oklahoma has a history of voting for candidates with famous names, but I doubt that Owasso and Catoosa Democrats had Ché in mind when they voted for Wayne Guevara, who finished first in the Democratic House District 74 primary. Guevara is an Owasso City Councilor, works for the Palmer Drug Abuse Program, and is a paralegal specialist with the National Guard. The Owasso Reporter reports that Guevara will be out of the state for the runoff with Carl Weston of Catoosa; he's being deployed for three weeks with his National Guard unit to New Mexico.

There were a number of primary races where the outcome might have been different if Instant Runoff Voting were in use. Oklahoma's runoff system, rematching the top two candidates if no one gets a majority, works well with only three candidates, but it can break down when there are four or more candidates. If the fourth- or fifth-place candidate hadn't been in the race, it might have changed the order of finish between the first three candidates, and a different pair of candidates would have made the runoff. The 1991 Louisiana governor's race is a classic example of the problem -- incumbent Buddy Roemer might have made the runoff instead of ex-Klansman David Duke or ex-con Edwin Edwards.

Ideally, you'd have a series of runoffs, each round eliminating one candidate until a candidate has a majority of the vote. IRV does that with a single election, by having voters rank the candidates in order of preference, rather than mark a single candidate.

Instant Runoff Voting might have produced a different result in Democratic primaries for Lt. Governor, House District 15, and DA District 17. The primary for House 99 had five candidates and will be going to an August runoff, but IRV wouldn't have changed the outcome, because the combined votes of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-place candidates were less than the second-place candidate.

On the Republican side, the race most likely to have been affected by IRV was in House District 41, where only 101 votes separated the second- and third-place finishers, and fourth and fifth place had 700 votes between them. Theoretically, IRV might have changed the result in the race for the 5th Congressional District and in House District 69, but in both cases there was a much bigger gap between second and third places.

Three judicial races might have had a different outcome with IRV, Judicial District 14 Office 10 (the six-candidate Tulsa County race to replace Gregory Frizzell), and the elections for Associate District Judge in McClain and Choctaw Counties.

An advantage of IRV is that you don't have to have a separate runoff election. The disadvantage of IRV to a candidate is that you wouldn't get that extra month to make your case to the voters, who would no longer be distracted by the large number of candidates in your race and the large number of races on the ballot.

Logrolling is a time-honored technique for funding projects that couldn't stand up to focused scrutiny. You lump a project of questionable importance in with essential appropriations, so that no one dare vote against it. That setup makes it very hard for a voter to hold his own legislator accountable for wasteful spending.

Here in Oklahoma, the most notable TV ad of the governor's race was from the Bob Sullivan campaign. It featured Gailard Sartain, and it targeted Ernest Istook for supporting federal money for a California tattoo removal program and for bringing gorillas to Kentucky. The ad was successful in bringing attention to the campaign and in raising a question about Istook's record.

Istook was able to rebut the ad by saying that those two votes were part of massive spending packages which included essential projects. He was also able to say that the rest of the Republicans in the Oklahoma delegation voted for the same bills. Every congressman who voted for those bills can use the same excuse. The only congressman who can be definitively tied to the specific pork project is the guy representing the district that's getting the money.

Arizona Republican Congressman Jeff Flake has found a way to put his colleagues on record in support or opposition to wasteful spending. He proposed 19 amendments to appropriations bills, each one of which would have removed funding for a pork project. None of his amendments passed. In fact, 280 congressmen did not vote in favor of a single amendment.

Club for Growth has helpfully collected in one place a summary of how every House member voted on the 19 appropriations amendments Flake offered in late May and June.

Only one Oklahoma congressman gets a passing grade. John Sullivan, representing the 1st District, supported Flake on 16 of 19 votes -- 84% -- which puts him in the top 10 percent of the House.

Ernest Istook voted to cut only six of the 19 pork projects -- 32%, but still better than 82% of his colleagues. Istook's record is just a bit better than the Republican average of 5.1 anti-pork yes votes. (Democrats averaged 0.55 yes votes out of 19.)

The remaining three -- Dan Boren (D-2nd District), Frank Lucas (R-3rd District), Tom Cole (R-4th District) -- voted against all 19 pork-slicing amendments.

The projects that Flake targeted include a half-million-dollar swimming pool in Banning, California, a theater in Plattsburgh, New York, and a science museum in Virginia. They all sound like worthwhile projects, but not matters of national importance. Any funding for these projects should come from local government or the private sector.

First (and probably briefest) in a series:

Tulsa County DA Tim Harris prevailed over a tough challenge, but a few other incumbent District Attorneys didn't make it.

Tim Kuykendall, 12-year DA in Cleveland, McClain, and Garvin counties, lost to challenger Greg Mashburn, 63% to 37%. While Tim Harris was criticized for having too high a conviction rate (supposedly an indication that he was cherry-picking cases and wasn't filing charges he should have), Kuykendall was criticized by Mashburn for "winning only 34% of jury trials." Like Brett Swab in Tulsa County, Mashburn made an issue of FOP endorsements.

Richard Gray, one-term incumbent DA for Wagoner, Sequoyah, Cherokee, and Adair Counties, finished first in his Democratic primary, but barely. Gray was hurt by the legal problems of one of his aides Vyrl Keeter (who had also been an aide to former Congressman Brad Carson). Keeter pled guilty to perjury and has some other charges pending. 170 votes separate Gray from second-place finisher Jerry Moore, and the runoff's winner will face Republican Brian Kuester.

John David Luton has been Muskogee County DA since 1992, but this was the first time he ever had to run for office. He was appointed by Governor David Walters and never faced an opponent until this year. He lost by a two-to-one margin to Larry Moore, a former assistant DA from Fort Gibson.

Tim Harris's re-election win is all the more impressive in light of successful challenges in these other DA districts.

Ordinarily, a public official would be happy to be re-elected without opposition, but it can be a bad thing. A campaign is a time to reconnect with the voters, to explain to them what you're doing, and to hear their concerns. Without the need to campaign, an official can be so focused on just getting the job done that he fails to explain to his bosses -- the people who elected him -- what he's been accomplishing on their behalf.

Starting in late August, former Mayor Bill LaFortune and former Tulsa County Democratic Chairman Elaine Dodd will be doing a weekly show on OETA called "He Said, She Said." J. Hayes posted the following on the okdemocrat.com message board:

After former Tulsa Mayor Bill Lafortune and former Tulsa County Democratic Chairman Elaine Dodd gave respective analysis of both the repub and the Democrat primary results tonight on OETA�s campaign coverage, an idea for a new show was spawned. The new show will cover the local Tulsa political scene and is sure to be a big hit with activists of both parties. The weekly show will be called 'He Said She Said' and is set to premier in August just after the state runoff elections. More details to follow as they become available.

Elaine Dodd replied on the same thread:

Mayor Bill and I "tape" our first show on August 23 (his birthday) and mine follows five days thereafter so I think I'll bake a cake--he may want to check for any surprises inside!

If you have any suggestions for political topics, please email me. All politics is local afterall.

Elaine
patriotic1970@yahoo.com

It's an interesting choice of hosts. I have the impression that Elaine Dodd is still very plugged in to local Democratic Party politics and would have a lot of insider info to draw upon, but as far as I know LaFortune hasn't been seen at a Republican event since the mayoral election.

So what has the former mayor been doing? A little bit of this and that, it appears. A Whirled story last Wednesday says that he is building a private civil law practice, with zoning and real estate among his specialties, working as an administrative law judge, and consulting for OU-Tulsa and Pinnacle Packaging.

In the battle for the 1st Congressional District Republican nomination, ORU librarian Evelyn Rogers defeated Fran Mo-Ghaddam by 5,824 to 1,894, despite Mo-Ghaddam's automated phone call to Republican voters and her last-minute yardsign blitz. Mo-Ghaddam didn't got 'em mo-mentum.

Incumbent John Sullivan squeaked past both of them with 38,274 votes.

For more results in the statewide, legislative, and judicial races, visit the Oklahoma State Election Board's 2006 primary results page.

KOTV has the best county results. Here is the County Commission District 1 primary. Here is the County Commission District 3 primary. (District Attorney and District Judge races are on the state election board website.)

UPDATE: The Tulsa County Election Board has Tulsa County results for all the races on the ballot. I'm fascinated by the number of undervotes in each race -- the number of voters who didn't mark a name in that race. 7,150 voters didn't vote in the countywide District Judge primary (Office 10). Oddly, 40 voters overvoted -- marked two or more names in that race.

I'll be on 1170 KFAQ with Michael DelGiorno and Gwen Freeman starting at 6:10 a.m. this morning for a special primary election preview.

For your voting convenience, here are the endorsements I've made in statewide and local Republican races and the non-partisan judicial races, starting with the top of the ballot:

Governor: State Sen. James Williamson is the most experienced and knowledgable candidate in the race, the best qualified to be Governor of Oklahoma -- incumbent Brad Henry included. Williamson has been a leader in the legislature for fiscal restraint, meaningful lawsuit reform, and the protection of the sanctity of human life.

Lt. Governor: Can't really go wrong in this primary -- all three candidates are good people, and it grieves me to see the mud flying back and forth. State Sen. Scott Pruitt has the biggest vision for the office, taking full advantage of the powers of the office to advance a conservative vision for Oklahoma.

State Treasurer: Dan Keating has already demonstrated that he'll be a watchdog for the taxpayers' interests by calling attention to the problems created by the Henry-Meacham tribal tobacco compacts. Howard Barnett's vocal support for the anti-democratic at-large city councilor proposal shows an appreciation for clubby insider politics, an attitude that we don't need in the office that invests our state's financial assets.

State Insurance Commissioner: I'm not bowled over by either candidate, but Tahl Willard seems to have more relevant experience, including a stint as the Insurance Department's Regional Director for Eastern Oklahoma and manager of the Tulsa office, along with an impressive set of insurance certifications. His opponent, Bill Case, is a term-limited State Rep. who was nominated for the Oklahoma Conservative PAC's RINO (Republican in Name Only) award every year for the last five, winning once.

U. S. Representative, District 1: On fiscal and social issues, on border security and national security, Congressman John Sullivan has been as consistent a conservative as you could want on the full range of congressional issues.

State Senate, District 36: There's more to Joe Lester than a catchy jingle. His newspaper articles reveal an intelligent, principled conservatism, and he would bring almost 40 years of law enforcement experience (U. S. Army MP, City of Tulsa, University of Oklahoma) to the Legislature.

State House, District 68: Incumbent Chris Benge is the best choice for another term.

State House, District 69: Former City Councilor Chris Medlock would bring a needed perspective to the Legislature. He's a conservative who understands the impact that state government has on Oklahoma's largest cities. As I wrote a couple of months ago: "I think Chris would make an excellent legislator. The Republican caucus needs more members who will keep it committed to conservative and free-market principles. Chris Medlock understands that being pro-business means providing an environment in which all businesses can thrive, not making special deals for special interests."

State House, District 76: John Wright is another incumbent with a strong conservative record who deserves re-election.

District Attorney, District No. 14 (Tulsa County): Despite declining arrests, eight-year incumbent Tim Harris has put away a record number of bad guys, focusing his department's resources on the cases that matter most. Challenger Brett Swab's campaign is grounded in misleading presentation of facts. One attorney asked me, rhetorically, if Swab will twist the facts to win his "case" against Harris, will he twist the facts to win in court?

Tulsa County Commission, District 1: Former City Councilor Anna Falling hasn't lost any of her enthusiasm and drive, but her leadership of a faith-based outreach to Tulsa's needy has smoothed off some of the rough edges. Tulsa County government needs someone willing to move beyond the way things have always been done and someone who will look out for the taxpayers' interests first.

Tulsa County Commission, District 3: State Rep. Fred Perry is the most consistent conservative in this race, and his rapport with grassroots Republicans and legislative leaders will serve Tulsa County well. Any of the other three candidates would likely mean a continuation of good ol' business as usual at the County Courthouse.

District Judge, District 14, Office 4:: Collinsville Municipal Judge Jim Caputo is my pick for this office, which is on the ballot only in northern and eastern Tulsa County.

District Judge, District 14, Office 10:: There are a number of good candidates in this race, but I've known J. Anthony Miller for over a decade as an elder in our church. I am confident that Miller has the experience, temperament, and prudence to be an excellent district judge.

Tulsa County Election Board has posted sample ballots for every precinct.

In addition to the above elections, Berryhill Fire Protection District has a vote on whether to expand its territory, and the Town of Skiatook is voting on a 10-year extension to a one-cent sales tax.

Here are links to my election preview columns from Urban Tulsa Weekly:

The Tulsa County judicial races
The statewide races
The Tulsa County legislative races
The Tulsa County DA and Commission races

Every election season, Oklahomans for Life asks candidates to go on record with their views on the sanctity of human life. Here's a link to a PDF file of the July 2006 Oklahomans for Life newsletter with all the candidate responses. It's interesting to see who responded and who didn't bother.

Even if an elective office won't have direct involvement in issues like abortion and euthanasia, it's useful to know where a candidate stands, because it gives you a clue about his worldview, his philosophical basis for making decisions.

This week's column in Urban Tulsa Weekly is about Tulsa-area legislative primaries, particularly about the most hotly contested race, the Republican primary to replace Fred Perry in House District 69, which includes far south Tulsa, Jenks, a bit of Bixby, and the northern part of Glenpool.

One of the emerging issues in that race involves the proposed toll bridge across the Arkansas River that would connect south Tulsa near 121st Street to Jenks and Bixby. Although Fred Jordan got a tremendous headstart in the campaign, helped by $100,000 in contributions, largely from the development industry, Jordan is losing ground as south Tulsa voters learn that he is in favor of the toll bridge as proposed by Infrastructure Ventures Inc.

The South Tulsa Citizens' Coalition asked all five Republican candidates to sign a representation opposing the bridge. The representation states that the candidate will not support a bridge until certain intersections and streets connecting to the bridge have been widened, will oppose any heavy truck traffic on Yale between 121st and the Creek Turnpike, and won't support the north end of the bridge connecting to or near Yale Avenue. Chris Medlock, Lisa DeBolt, and Jeff Applekamp have all signed these letters, and Medlock was a leader while on the City Council in getting city officials on record in opposition to the bridge. (Here is a PDF of Medlock's representation letter.)

Fred Jordan and Darrell Gwartney have refused to sign the representation, which Jordan calls, "a highly restrictive and legalistic 'pledge' committing [his opponents] to oppose the bridge under any reasonable circumstances." (Here is a PDF of Fred Jordan's statement to the STCC.) I'm sure STCC members would object to the characterization of the preconditions, which I summarized above, as unreasonable.

Jordan, who has been vague on the issue until now, has started to lose supporters to Chris Medlock. (Although there are two other candidates who oppose the bridge, they are trailing far behind Jordan and Medlock. Neither DeBolt nor Applekamp are likely to make the runoff.) A couple of days ago I spoke to Kari Romoser, who lives near 111th and Yale, an area that would feel the traffic impact if the bridge is connected to Yale. She had Fred Jordan's sign in her yard, but she recently pulled it up and replaced it with a Chris Medlock sign.

Jordan's position on the bridge issue wasn't the only reason for Kari's change, but it was an important reason. Her family has invested a lot to be in this part of Tulsa so that they can send their children to Jenks Southeast Elementary School. Anything that would hurt the value of their home or affect safe access to the school is important to her.

Jordan's company, Caprock Resources, is developing three residential areas along Elm (Peoria) in south Jenks. Two of them, Wakefield Pond and Wakefield Village, are along 121st St., in an area that would benefit from the proposed bridge without bearing a significant traffic impact. (For he folks north of the bridge in south Tulsa along Yale, the traffic impact would far outweigh any convenience benefit.)

So far, the toll bridge has been a local issue, involving Tulsa County and the cities of Jenks and Tulsa, so why does it matter what a state representative thinks about the issue? In his statement, Jordan says that, "to my knowledge, there is no pending or proposed action in the legislature relating to the bridge."

In fact, there was a measure in the Legislature this session which passed the House but was killed in the Senate that would have had an effect on the toll bridge deal. The process has raised all kinds of issues that the Legislature may address at some point: Should counties and cities be able to enter into private toll bridge deals of this sort? Who has ownership and jurisdiction over the Arkansas River bed? Whose approval is needed to build a private toll bridge? Should private toll roads and toll bridges be legal? Should the jurisdiction responsible for connecting infrastructure have a say in whether a toll bridge is built? When a city and the county, or two adjacent cities, are at odds over a bridge, who makes the final decision?

As we learned with the Board of Adjustment legislation (SB 1324, HB 2559) this session, it won't be enough to have the Tulsa City Council on our side, because the Legislature could take away the City's say on this contentious issue. It will be important for south Tulsa residents to have someone in the Legislature who will represent their interests on this matter, someone with the savvy to detect and block any attempt to bypass Tulsa's city government.

Cal Hobson, Democratic Lt. Gov. candidate and former President Pro Tempore of the State Senate, angrily denounced the tax cuts passed by the Oklahoma Legislature in a speech on the Senate floor the final day of the special session:

You�re eroding your tax base for no good purpose and you�re giving it to people that don�t need it, won�t remember it, and � I assure you Democrats � they will take their money and they will use it to beat you and help them....

You don�t want to hear this, and you think it�s just a blowhard on the last day.... But unless you just hate schools, and hate good roads, and hate the fact that 600,000 of our people walk around without health insurance, and 700,000 are on Medicaid, unless you like that ... you can�t be for this kind of crap. You can�t be for the kind of giveaways of last year and again this year, and a total of $615 million.... We are pooping off the largesse given to us, just like last year.

I just happen to feel passionately, having had the joy and pleasure of raising taxes a number of times (to keep the lights on in Oklahoma), I don�t take this stuff lightly.... In the long term, maybe not next week, but in the long term you will regret what you�re doing to this tax base.

The Senator doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the term "tax base." The hope, Mr. Hobson, is that by reducing the tax rate, there will be incentives for businesses to start in, stay in, grow in, or move to Oklahoma -- an increase in economic activity that means a larger economic base upon which taxes can be levied to pay for public needs.

It's sort of refreshing to see a politician openly embrace his lust for higher taxes.

Getting caught up with links to my Urban Tulsa Weekly columns: This most recent issue has my picks on the four contested Republican primaries for statewide races -- Governor (Jim Williamson), Lt. Governor (Scott Pruitt), Treasurer (Daniel Keating), and Insurance Commissioner (Tahl Willard).

Also, in her latest column, Jamie Pierson ponders the plans for new upscale housing downtown and wonders if there will be places to live that are affordable for baristas, small businessfolk, and struggling artists.

This week's column takes a look at the four Republican primaries for statewide offices and the local 1st Congressional District race.

(Added on September 30, 2006, to fill in the gaps in my Urban Tulsa Weekly column archive.)

It took me a while to puzzle all this out, and I thought others might be interested as well.

Oklahoma has 26 District Courts. Tulsa County and Pawnee County constitute Judicial District No. 14. State law says that District 14 has 14 district judge offices.

One judge must reside in and be nominated from Pawnee County, eight must reside in and be nominated from Tulsa County. If there are more than two candidates for any of those nine offices, there is a non-partisan nominating primary in the appropriate county, and the top two vote-getters are on the general election ballot. (Even if one gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two still advance.)

In the general election, all voters in Pawnee and Tulsa Counties vote on those nine seats.

The remaining five district judges are selected by electoral division in Tulsa County. In order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Tulsa County is divided into five electoral divisions of equal population, one of which (Electoral Division 3) has a "minority-majority" population. For each of these five offices, if there are three or more candidates, there is a non-partisan nominating primary. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, he is elected; otherwise, the top two advance to the general election. For each of these five offices, the candidates must reside in the corresponding electoral division, and only voters in that electoral division will vote for that office in the primary and general election. (Oklahoma County, Judicial District No. 7, is the only other county with judges elected by division.)

(CORRECTION: I'm told that the electoral division are not in fact of equal population. The minority-majority district is much smaller than the other four, as it must be in order to guarantee that the electorate is majority African-American.)

Despite the three different paths one can take to be elected, a Judge in Judicial District No. 14 can be assigned to try any case within the two counties.

Each county in the state also elects an Associate District Judge, nominated and elected countywide. There will be a general election contest for Tulsa County Associate District Judge between Caroline Wall and Dana Kuehn. Pawnee County Associate District Judge Matthew Henry was re-elected without opposition. (He was probably helped by all that free publicity from his Bible commentary.)

In addition to the elected judges, the District has a certain number of Special Judges, who are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the District Judges. Several candidates for District Judge currently serve as Special Judges.

All this I was able to puzzle out from prior knowledge and browsing through the relevant sections of the Oklahoma Statutes. What I still couldn't quite figure out is which of the 14 offices corresponded with the five electoral divisions, and which one was nominated from Pawnee County. Although electoral division 4 votes for office 4, I was pretty sure the pattern did not apply to the other offices. After a few phone calls, someone from the Tulsa County Election Board found the relevant info in the League of Women Voters handbook. So here it is, for your reference and mine:

Offices elected by Tulsa County Electoral Divisions in red.
Offices nominated by Pawnee County in blue.

¹ Not seeking re-election.
² Three candidates in this race; if none of them receive more than 50% in the primary, there will be a runoff.
³ Judge Frizzell was nominated by President Bush to the Federal District Court and withdrew his candidacy for re-election.

Although all 14 offices are up for election this year, only five offices are contested, and only two of those will be on the primary ballot.

Only one of the five offices elected by electoral division is contested this year. Jim Caputo, the municipal judge for Collinsville, Special Judge Damon Cantrell, and David Blades are seeking the post being vacated by David Peterson. The approximate boundaries of the district are all of Tulsa County north of 66th St. N.; east of Sheridan between Admiral and 66th St. N.; Memorial to 193rd East Ave. between Admiral and 31st; Memorial to 129th East Ave., between 31st and 61st. To know for sure which electoral division you live in, use the precinct locator at the Tulsa County Election Board website.

I'm working on a column about our local slate of judicial candidates. Most sitting district judges drew no opposition, but there are five contested district judgeships in District 14 (Tulsa and Pawnee counties) and a race for Tulsa County associate district judge.

Only two of the races have more than two candidates. These will be on the primary ballot, with the top two candidates going on to the general election.

DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT 14, OFFICE 4
(replacing David L. Peterson)

David Blades, 44, 4740 S. 90th E. Ave., Tulsa
James M. Caputo, 47, 9304 E 126 St. North, Collinsville 74021
Daman H. Cantrell, 46, 8757 N. 97th E. Ave., #1117, Owasso 74055

DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT 14, OFFICE 10
(replacing Gregory K. Frizzell)

Deirdre Dexter, 50, 620 Valley Drive, Sand Springs 74063
James W. Dunham, 53, 7640 S. Oswego Place, Tulsa 74136
David C Youll, 43, 2404 West C Street, Jenks 74037
J. Anthony Miller, 49, 1709 S. Carson Avenue, Tulsa 74119
Mary Fitzgerald, 54, 2729 E. 22nd St., Tulsa 74114
Steven E. Hjelm, Sr., 42, 9010 S. Darlington Ave, Tulsa 74137

Frizzell had filed for a new term, but on Wednesday of the filing period he got the word that President Bush was nominating him to the Federal District Court, replacing Clinton appointee Sven Erik Holmes, who retired to go to work for KPMG.

Most voters don't feel like they have enough information when they vote for judge. There are restrictions on the way a judicial candidate can campaign. Judicial candidates can't talk about anything that might come before them as a case.

I do think it's fair game, however, to ask about the influences that shape the thinking of the candidates, their judicial philosophy, and their character.

So I'd like to know what you know about these men and women -- their ideological leanings; personal, political, and religious associations; anecdotes that reveal something of their character and temperament. Some of these people have already served as special district judges or municipal judges -- perhaps you've witnessed them in that role.

In a departure from my usual policy, I will assume you want to remain anonymous unless you specifically authorize me to quote you by name. Send any info to blog AT batesline DOT com. Although I will keep you anonymous in my column, it's important that I know who you are, so please provide your real name. If you'd prefer to speak to me by phone, please provide your phone number to me by e-mail along with the best times to call. Thanks.

By the way, you'll notice that two of the campaigns for Office 10, J. Anthony Miller and Dierdre Dexter, have placed ads on BatesLine, as has Lt. Governor candidate Scott Pruitt. I'll take the opportunity to say that my allowing an ad to run doesn't constitute an endorsement from me. While I wouldn't accept every political ad that is placed (forget it, Hillary!), if a candidate is in generally in line with my views, I would let it run.

The Oklahoma Republican Assembly, affiliated with the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, held an endorsing convention last Saturday at the State Capitol. Here is a link to the list of OKRA's 2006 nominees.

Notable endorsements in contested Republican primaries: John Sullivan for re-election in the 1st Congressional District, Kevin Calvey for the 5th Congressional District seat, Bob Sullivan for Governor, Scott Pruitt for Lt. Governor, Dan Keating for Treasurer, Tahl Willard for Insurance Commissioner, Joe Lester in Senate 36, Chris Medlock in House 69, Tim Harris for Tulsa DA, Brian Kuester for DA of Wagoner, Cherokee, Sequoyah, and Adair Counties, Anna Falling for County Commission District 1, and Fred Perry for County Commission District 3.

They also made endorsements in District Court races. In District 14 (Tulsa and Pawnee Counties), they endorsed Tom Thornbrugh for re-election to office 8, Dierdre Dexter for office 10 (held by Gregory Frizzell, who has been nominated to the Federal bench), Jonathan Sutton to office 13, and Dana Kuehn for Tulsa County Associate District Judge.

I was told by someone who participated in the convention that Instant Runoff Voting was used in the process. Local Republicans started using that method for the selection of national convention delegates and alternates at the 1st District Republican Convention in 2000 and again in 2004; it's nice to see the practice spread.

At a time when you get the impression that all the talk about fiscal restraint is only lip service, this should help restore your faith that some of these politicians really mean it. State Rep. Mark Liotta set out two years ago to find a way to boost state spending on roads and bridges without raising taxes. At long last Liotta's plan is expected to pass as part of the budget plan on the agenda for this week's special legislative session:

Two Years of GOP Road Work More Than Doubles Investment to Fix Crumbling Infrastructure OKLAHOMA CITY (June 19, 2006) � A state budget framework agreed to last week will invest more than $3 billion additional dollars to fix Oklahoma�s crumbling roads and bridges over the next decade � a top priority for House GOP leaders this year.

�This is the most significant improvement in road funding in state history,� said Rep. Mark Liotta (R-Tulsa), the House GOP leader who crafted the Oklahoma�s Road to the Future plan. �Over the last quarter century, our state�s investment in roads has remained flat and our roads have suffered. But in just two short years, the new Republican majority in the House has made roads and bridges a top priority.�

Without a tax increase, the state budget agreement announced last week will expand the state�s annual roads budget from $200 million to $470 million each year when fully implemented. County road money will also double, from $85 million to $170 million every year.

�The most significant aspect to this plan is that we did not tie the money to a list of political projects,� said Liotta. �No specific projects are named. We leave those decisions to our state road professionals who know the needs of the system. We have significantly eliminated the politics in road building.�

The funds accelerate a Republican program to improve Oklahoma�s roads first passed last year. And earlier this year, Republican leaders achieved $125 million for emergency bridge repairs across the state. The new money will come on top of an extra $111.8 million provided for road maintenance and bridge repair during the 2005 legislative session.

Under the Republican plan that is part of the state budget accord, the total amount of new road money guaranteed over the next several years will increase from $170 million to at least $270 million. The plan also includes a $70 million annualization of the debt service on bonds that the Department of Transportation has been forced to pay in the past out of maintenance funds.

All fuel tax dollars from gas and diesel currently funneled into the state�s general revenue will be redirected into a new high priority state bridge fund to address critical bridge projects.

�The taxpayers want to know that their fuel tax dollars are being applied to critical road needs. With this plan we are well on our way to achieving that goal,� Liotta concluded.

Fuel taxes going to pay for roads and bridges; no earmarking or "demonstration projects" (aka pork barrel); more money for maintenance; all without a tax increase. Good news all the way around.

How will the Whirled editorial board, a fervent backer of the failed plan to increase the fuel tax, spin this? Look for the following thought in an upcoming editorial: "That's good, but just think what we could accomplish if only we raised taxes."

UPDATE: I sent a question to Rep. Liotta: Doesn't this just
mean less money in the general fund for tax cuts or other spending priorities?

Here's his response:

Of Course! Road funding has been flat for over 25 years. It has literally remained at around $200 million over that period, which means road funding has been cut every single year. Nearly every other area of state spending has received massive increases over the same period. Concrete, rebar and right-of-way all cost more every year. We have not built a road in Oklahoma with appropriated state dollars in years. They have been built either with federal funds matched with toll road credits, or bond issues (a very expensive method). This has endangered our ability to receive federal matching funds and left critical maintenance undone (again, an expensive way to operate). In fact, if we had not increased road funding last year in my sub-committee, we would no longer be eligible for federal matching by 2009. So yes, I am re-establishing roads as a high priority because they have been neglected for so long, and yes, that means less money to waste on nonsense. It's time somebody stood up for roads and bridges. I know it sounds simplistic but, what good are the best schools, hospitals, and businesses if you can't get there?

On Friday, I went to the Tulsa County Republican Men's Club luncheon to hear various county, legislative, and judicial candidates introduce themselves. (I attended, but didn't buy lunch, because the meeting is still at the Radisson, which is run by Jon Davidson, who chaired the recall effort against Republican City Councilors Jim Mautino and Chris Medlock.)

Each candidate had two minutes to speak. We heard from most of the candidates for Judicial District 14 (Tulsa and Pawnee Counties), Offices 4 (north Tulsa County and a bit of the City of Tulsa) and 10 (the whole district). We heard from candidates to replace Sen. Scott Pruitt in Senate District 36 and Rep. Fred Perry in House District 69. Nearly all of the candidates for County Commission Districts 1 and 3 were there.

Most of the candidates made the most basic political mistake: They forgot to say who they were and what they were running for. The MC briefly mentioned each candidate by name to call him or her up to the podium, but by the time the candidate had finished speaking, I had forgotten who it was. The judicial candidates were especially bad about this. Lots of pronouns -- I did this, my career, my family -- but no names. The political candidates usually remembered to work in their name and office at least once at the beginning and once at the end of their two minutes.

Another curious omission came from House District 69 candidate Darrell Gwartney. Gwartney mentioned spending most of his career in public school administration, mentioning being an administrator in the Broken Arrow school system, but he never mentioned his lengthy and most recent assignment as superintendent of Catoosa Public Schools, from 1992 to 2003. He was assistant superintendent at Catoosa from 1990 to 1992.

The following statewide and Tulsa-area Democratic candidates are currently without a challenger. The filing deadline is 5 p.m. today.

• Sandy Garrett, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Mary Easley, State Senate District 18
• Lucky Lamons, State House District 66
• Darrell Gilbert, State House District 72
• Jabar Shumate, State House District 73

Additionally, Doris Fransein, the District Judge who bizarrely reversed herself on the Tulsa City Council District 5 voting irregularities case, has yet to draw an opponent for her re-election. Unlike appeals court and supreme court judges, who face a yes-or-no retention ballot, district judges face contested elections, so in order to get rid of a district judge, someone has to run against her or him.

Also yet to draw an opponent: Ron Peters, from State House District 70, one of a handful of renegade Republicans who supported the lottery and the expansion of casino gambling, and the sponsor of a number of developer-backed bills intruding on local control of zoning and land use regulation. He hasn't had a challenger since 2000.

Greg Peters, son of Ron, is running for the open District 74 house seat, which covers Owasso and Catoosa, but Greg Peters has drawn a primary opponent, David Derby, and there are three Democrats and an independent in the race.

To my surprise, only one candidate, Weldon Watson, has entered the State House District 79 race, an open seat now held by Chris Hastings, who is leaving because of term limits. That's a very Republican district, so I'm surprised more candidates haven't seized that opportunity. (UPDATE: Deborah Davis, also a Republican, has now filed for that seat.)

Caroline Wall, one of the candidates for Tulsa County Associate District Judge lists, 500 S. Denver Rm 633, as her place of residence. I guess she loves her job -- that is a room in the Tulsa County Courthouse. Seems to me another candidate could contest that declaration of candidacy.

Here, from the Oklahoma State Election Board, is the list of candidates who have filed for statewide office, Congress, state legislature, district judges, and district attorneys, updated in near-real-time.

This practice seems to be on the rise: When a seat in the state legislature is about to open up, potential candidates move into the district. They don't have any particular attachment to the area. They just have aspirations of serving in the legislature, and they will move wherever they need to move to have a shot at winning.

In Britain, there's no requirement for a Member of Parliament to live in the constituency he represents, but in America there is a strong tradition of geographical representation. We want our representatives to be "one of us" -- someone who has lived among us, shops where we shop, drives the same streets, and knows how the laws he considers affect our neighborhoods.

While Oklahoma law only requires six-month residency before filing for state legislature, most voters would prefer to see a longer commitment to the district before entrusting someone with representing them in Oklahoma City.

It's been clear since June 2004, when District 69 State Rep. Fred Perry drew no opposition for re-election, that District 69 would be an open seat in 2006. Perry would reach his term limit and would be ineligible to run for re-election.

Bobby at Tulsa Topics did some research at the Tulsa County Election Board and discovered that of the five declared candidates to succeed Perry, three of them have moved into the district since that time.

Going back through my voter registration CDs from the state election board, I was able to find a few more specifics.

Sydney Fred Jordan, Jr., first registered to vote in Tulsa County on June 17, 2004. His wife, Kyndra Brooke Jordan, registered to vote in Tulsa County on the same day. Prior to that he was registered to vote in Osage County, at the same address as his father. Records from March 2004 show him registered Republican, but "inactive", which means he had not voted in the previous four years.

Jordan had registered to vote in Osage County in February 1992, shortly after his 18th birthday. Some time between September 1999 and April 2000, he changed parties from Democrat to Republican. I have voter history records going back to May 1994, and he is not credited with having voted at all from that time through his move to Tulsa County. Since registering in Tulsa County, Jordan has been a fairly regular voter.

Darrell Lee Gwartney first registered to vote in Tulsa County on July 15, 2005. His wife, Deborah Lanelle Gwartney, registered to vote in Tulsa County on the same day. Prior to that they had been registered to vote in Rogers County, east of Owasso, since August 1994.

Jeff A. Applekamp has been registered to vote in Tulsa County since 2000, but he changed his registration to 7402 S. Lewis Ave. in November 2005. That address appears to be an apartment complex. Prior to that he was registered (as Jeffrey A. Applekamp) at 2712 W. 66th Pl., which is in House District 68. His wife, Laurie Renee Applekamp, was still registered at 2712 W. 66th Pl. as of May 8.

Bobby also checked land records and noticed that Applekamp closed on property in the Wind River subdivision near 121st and Riverside on January 27, 2006. He still owns the home at 2712 W. 66th Pl. Bobby didn't mention whether that home still has a homestead exemption.

It would appear that Applekamp rented an apartment in the District just in time to make the six-months deadline, but that he and his wife still live in District 68.

The other two candidates? The earliest registration records I have go back to May 1998. Christopher Scott Medlock was already resident and registered at his current address. Lisa Renee DeBolt was registered at 121st Street in Jenks at that time.

(Added retroactively on June 3, 2006, to complete the column archive.)

This week's Urban Tulsa Weekly column is about corporate welfare, connecting the dots between news that the Great Plains Airlines tax credits are being repaid with money that should be repairing roads and bridges, an effort to extend similar tax credits for the restoration of Shangri-La resort on Grand Lake, former Mayor Bill LaFortune's favorable concessions deals for the Tulsa Talons and Tulsa Oilers, and the biggest example of corporate welfare around -- the $200 million BOk Center.

Good news! Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry has signed SB 1742, a pro-life bill which passed the legislature overwhelmingly. Here is the way Oklahomans for Life describes the bill:

The bill contains funding for alternatives to abortion, provides information about where a woman could get a free ultrasound, tells her about the pain a baby 20 weeks or older might feel during an abortion, provides for the consent of a parent before a minor�s abortion, and makes it a crime to kill an unborn child in contexts other than legal abortion.

According to the Tulsa Whirled's website, Gov. Henry said, "Senate Bill 1742 includes measured restrictions on abortion.... This legislation strikes a reasonable balance on a contentious issue."

The bill does nothing to hinder women who want to get an abortion, but it does ensure that they get information about what is going to be done to them and their unborn child when it can still make a difference. The time to face the ugly realities of abortion is before the irrevocable choice is made, not years later, when nothing can be done but weep over what was destroyed.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the legislature: 84-5 in the State House, 38-8 in the State Senate. Nearly all of Tulsa County�s legislative delegation voted for the bill, Democrats and Republicans alike. The only exceptions: Democratic State Sens. Judy Eason-McIntyre and Tom Adelson, and Democratic State Reps. Jeannie McDaniel and Darrell Gilbert.

Eason-McIntyre and Adelson won�t face the voters until 2008.

McDaniel, who represents House District 78, is the successor to Mary Easley, a staunchly pro-life Democrat who moved up to the State Senate. In 2004, McDaniel won her first term in the closely-divided district by 24 votes.

Police officer Jesse Guardiola, a Republican, is challenging McDaniel this year. Not only will he be helped by McDaniel�s out-of-step vote on SB 1742, but also by her co-authorship of HB 2559, one of the bills that would have interfered with local control of zoning. Guardiola has been actively campaigning for about six months; he came by our house during this last weekend's unseasonably hot weather.

Gilbert hasn�t faced a Republican challenger since his first election in 1996 and hasn�t been on the ballot at all since the 1998 Democratic primary.

Here's a link to the Senate vote. In addition to Adelson and Eason-McIntyre, Bernest Cain, J. Berry Harrison, Cal Hobson, Mike Morgan, Jeff Rabon, and Jim Wilson, all Democrats, voted no. Connie Johnson (D) and Stratton Taylor (D) were not present. Everyone else voted yes.

Here's a link to the House vote. In addition to McDaniel and Gilbert, Debbie Blackburn, Mike Shelton, and Barbara Staggs, all Democrats, voted no. Absent were Bill Case (R), Ryan Kiesel (D), Ray Miller (D), Paul Roan (D), Joe Eddins (D), Al Lindley (D), Bill Nations (D), Opio Toure (D), Chris Hastings (R), Mike Mass (D), Greg Piatt (R), and Ray Young (R). Everyone else voted yes.

More thoughts on this tomorrow.

Some sad news from Sooner psephologist R. Keith Gaddie:

SoonerPolitics.com Shutdown

I�ve been having service provider problems with SoonerPolitics.com, and have decided to shut down the website. Professional demands at the University and in my other research and consulting leave insufficient time to maintain the site.

I�ll still be writing from time to time for SouthernPoliticalReport.com and the Oklahoma Gazette, and bugging the activists on their discussion boards, but the time has come to commit to the "next project," which means another book.

My thanks to the 150,000 people who made almost two million visits to the site in two years. For the reporters and consultants who used the site, you can still reach me through the university (405-325-2061 or rkgaddie at ou dot edu). Everyone else, keep working hard for a politically transparent, informed Sooner Politics.

Keith Gaddie
Webmaster, SoonerPolitics.com
Professor, Department of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma

Keith's site was a great resource for news during the 2004 campaign, and it will be greatly missed. As he comments elsewhere on the web about Oklahoma politics, I'll be sure to let you know.

Former City Councilor Chris Medlock announced today that he will be a candidate for State House District 69, a seat currently held by Fred Perry, who has reached his term limit. The district overlaps with the eastern portion of the City Council district he represented, and extends west of the river to include Jenks and Glenpool.

Lest you think this is a whim, Chris has aspired to serve in the legislature for a long time. His first run for public office was for this very seat, in a special election in 1994. This is the first time the seat has been open since that time. When he first ran for City Council in 2003, he had in mind serving the remainder of that term, one additional term, and then running for House 69 when Fred Perry hit his term limit.

His plans took a detour last year. He successfully turned back the recall attempt, then was urged to challenge Bill LaFortune for Mayor.

After four elections in a little over three years, it would be understandable if he and his family chose to take a break from electoral politics. But it's likely that whoever wins the primary in this heavily Republican district will go one to win the seat and serve 12 years. That's a long time to wait for another chance.

I think Chris would make an excellent legislator. The Republican caucus needs more members who will keep it committed to conservative and free-market principles.

Chris Medlock understands that being pro-business means providing an environment in which all businesses can thrive, not making special deals for special interests. The fact that Republican leaders haven't declared the plan to give $30 million in tax credits to redevelop a lakefront resort (Shangri-La) dead on arrival tells you that we need more Republican legislators who can recognize, expose, and block deals like that.

The fact that SB 1324 and HB 2559 have gone as far as they have is an indication that we need legislators with city government experience, who will protect cities from the impositions of state government. And even during his mayoral campaign, Chris was talking about the importance of Tulsa and Oklahoma City legislators working together to develop an urban policy for the state, to better serve the needs of our largest cities.

Chris Medlock would be a great choice, and he has my support.

The above title differs only slightly from that of a song by Mark Russell, circa 1978. In one of his, at the time, fresh and original PBS specials, he lampooned President Jimmy Carter's $50 rebate, intended to stimulate our stagflated economy.

Now in 2005, just about anyone who filed an Oklahoma tax return for 2004 have received rebate checks in the mail: $45 for individual taxpayers, $90 for joint filers. The money's being sent back because the state had more money than it needed this year, enough to pay the bills and top up the "Rainy Day Fund."

A friend e-mailed to complain about the inequity of the rebate:

The $45 I received yesterday is exactly the amount my assistant got the same day, yet I paid ten times the state tax she paid. This is a form of communism (what appears to be mine is actually "ours", so we're here to take it). If this were a true refund and not a redistribution of wealth, I would have received ($45+$45)x(10)/(10+1) or $82 and my assistant would have received $8, but instead, Gov Henry has taken some of my money and given it to my assistant.

It ain't right, Mike, yet no one I've spoken with about this had realized they'd just had their farm collectivized. Had you even realized it?

Hadn't even occurred to me, but he has a point. At least it wasn't the whole farm. And no kulaks were harmed in this redistribution process, which is nice.

Why are projected revenues from Oklahoma's new tobacco tax so much lower than projected? An e-mail from Daniel Keating has the explanation:

I was recently asked how things are going with the tobacco compact issue since I serve as chairman of the Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Advisory Committee and there seems to be tobacco related stories each day in the newspaper.

Our committee has held two meetings with another scheduled on December 12. What we have been asked to do is make recommendations to the Tax Commission and the legislature on issues relating to enforcement of the levy, collections and remittances of taxes on cigarette and tobacco products in the state. As you are aware, Oklahoma passed state question 713 last year.

This question was intended to raise taxes on cigarettes and use the proceeds to fund a number of worthy health programs. Most people also thought and were told, it would eliminate the tribal tax advantage over non-tribal stores, which had been 42 cents a pack, to 17 cents a pack.

And how are things going today? Well today, the state is nearly $ 70 million behind on the projected collections, a large portion of Oklahoma's convience store industry is facing financial ruin and layoffs, and a number of major Indian nations and tribes are accused of being "cheaters" as they try to compete with other tribes who have been given compact preferences.

The fact is in 2003, a full year before passage of state question 713, Governor Henry and then Finance Director Scott Meacham negotiated and approved a great number of new tobacco compacts that gave certain tribes a tax advantage of 97 cents a pack, a 130% increase over what had been clearly out of line.

As the administration tries to square this raw deal, we were told it only affects shops located on the border. This is not true. Tribes near Stillwater, Seminole and Norman operate at the 6 cent exception rate. Those tribes not so fortunate pay 87 cents and non-tribal retailers pay $ 1.03. The Governor's compacts cannot be overturned and run until June 30, 2013. The Tax Commission, in my opinion, has little or no jurisdiction. It is not an enforcement body.

Against this background, the committee hopes to bring parity back to the convience store industry and make sure this anti-small business tactic is never used again.

Effectively, Oklahoma now has, at six cents per pack, the second-lowest cigarette tax in the nation. Not exactly what voters were sold, is it?

Last week Speaker of the House Todd Hiett announced that he is running for Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma. This morning at 10 at the Renaissance Hotel in Tulsa, State Sen. Scott Pruitt will be announcing his run; and State Sen. Nancy Riley will announce her candidacy on Monday at noon, at the triangle in downtown Sand Springs. All three are good folks. It's amazing that no candidates have emerged from the OKC metro area yet.

The incumbent, Mary Fallin, is running for U. S. House District 5, trying to succeed Ernest Istook, whose decision to run for governor set the dominoes in motion.

Today's Tulsa Whirled reports Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry's response to an initiative petition that would limit the use of eminent domain for private benefit, in response to the U. S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London:

"I have great concerns with government using eminent domain powers to take property from private citizens to be used for private development," he said. "I don't think I would ever propose that, and I have great concerns with the impact of that Supreme Court decision."

Henry does not think there is any danger of state or local government relying on the decision to take property for private development.

He said he is open to ideas to prevent that, including looking into the petition being circulated.

"It sounds like it's something we need to be talking about," Henry said.

Our Governor needs to open his eyes. Oklahoma cities have been using eminent domain for private development for a long time. This week's Urban Tulsa Weekly features a current example. The University of Tulsa wants a grand entrance on 11th Street. With the Tulsa Development Authority poised to condemn the property, the owner of the building that houses Starship Records and Tapes has sold it to the University of Tulsa. Holding on to the land was not an option. If the owner refused to sell, the city would have condemned the property and sold it to TU at cost. Condemnation, or the threat of condemnation, has been used to clear homes and businesses to make way for TU's Reynolds Center and the athletic complex between Columbia and Delaware Avenues.

Starship Records isn't blighted. Neither is Wendy's or Metro Diner. Nor were the homes east of Skelly Stadium. There's no public purpose at work here -- just a private institution that wants to use its political clout to expand at the expense of those who lack that clout.

Property owners nationwide had hoped that the Supreme Court would defend our 5th Amendment rights in the Kelo v. New London decision. Since that didn't happen, it's time for action at the state and local level to stop eminent domain abuse.

Oklahoma State Sen. Tom Adelson is a freshman Democrat who represents District 33, which covers midtown and west Tulsa, and he serves on the General Government Committee. That's the committee where State Rep. Sue Tibbs' bill, requiring voters to show photo ID, is being held up.

David Sims, a BatesLine reader and a constituent of Adelson's, e-mailed the senator to encourage him to allow the full senate to vote on the bill. David posted the e-mail exchange as a comment on my entry on the bill, but to make sure no one misses it, I'm reposting it here, with a few formatting adjustments to make it easier to follow. David's introductions to each e-mail are in bold.

After reading your blog yesterday about this Voter ID bill, I decided to contact my senator (Tom Adelson, midtown Tulsa) to see what he thought of it. While looking for his email address, I found out that he is on the General Government Committee. The following has been our discussion on the matter:

September 20, 2005

Dear Senator Tom Adelson:

I am writing this email to you to ask you a question regarding the Voter ID Bill. It is my understanding that it currently �lies dormant� in the General Government Committee. Being a member of this committee, I would think that you would have a good grasp on the intention of the bill as well as why it is currently being held in your committee from a vote by the full Senate.

It is also my understanding that critics of the bill say that having to present a valid ID at the polling booths would cause long lines and additional delays for the voters. I am sorry, but I don�t think that that is a valid enough reason not to assure the validity of a person�s vote.

It is my opinion that voting is a civic responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Elections are set way in advance, so people hould be able to make plans to use their time wisely.

I understand that problems may arise that changes a person�s timetable. However, there are laws in place to give people the time that they need to go vote. Under Oklahoma Statutes �26-7-01, �Every corporation, firm, association or individual hereinafter referred to as "employer" who, on election day, has a registered voter employed or in his service, shall grant the employee two (2) hours of time during the period when the election is open in which to vote��.

While I am not a fan of allowing people off of work with pay for personal matters, the law affords people that opportunity.

Surely, this bill makes sense in a reasonable and understandable fashion. I would like to know your position on this matter and any reasons that you have for your position. Also, please see what you can do to get this to a vote of the full Senate.

Finally, I have copied Senator Earl Garrison, Chairman of the General Government Committee, and Senator Kenneth Corn, Vice Chairman of the General Government Committee, on this email, so that they too may be allowed to state their position on this matter as well.

Thank you all, and I look forward to hearing back from you on this matter.

John �David� Sims
[address omitted]

P.S. Unless I hear otherwise from you, I would like to send this to the Tulsa World, Muskogee Phoenix, and Poteau Daily News so that we can inform the rest of your constituents on this matter.

Here is Senator Adelson's reply (via one of his staffers):

David -- I thinking voting integrity is of vital importance. Oklahoma is fortunate to have an accurate electronic system unlike many other states. In a closely divided race, that's a very important difference. For example, without the debacle in Florida in '00, we'd have a different President; we would have avoided the Iraq War and thousands of American casualities; we would not be in dire financial straits with record financial deficits (Remember when Republicans used to market themselves as the party of fiscal responsiblity); we would not have a President who favors amnesty, open borders, and the illegal competition from undocumented workers which lower American wages. (should I also mention fuel prices, cronyism, political corruption, graft and nepotism or is this enough)

So, I agree with you that voting matters. At this point in time, however, I don't see the need to show an I.D. Perhaps we should first investigate whether there is widespread fraud that would necessitate a slight increase in the inconvenience you mention, but I much prefer to keep voting as easy as possible.

If you feel it is important to share my response to others, please share this in its entirety.

I wasn't quite satisfied with his response, so I wrote back (replying to the staffer):

Ms. Curry:

Could you forward my thanks to Senator Adelson for taking the time to respond to my letter?

Also, could you forward my reply to his reply?

Senator Adelson:

I would prefer if we could remain on the topic of my original email. Instead of dwelling on the past, let's focus on how we can work toward the future and ensure that "debacles" (as you call them) don't happen in the future. Why not take a proactive stance on this matter and make sure that the potential for fraud is stopped before it happens?

Even if we took the time to determine whether there was fraud in the voting, other options for fraud can circumvent those determinations. Expecting someone to show their ID when voting can only help prevent the "potential" for fraud to occur.

When I voted in the 2004 general election for several positions (including your seat if I remember correctly), I waited in line and voted for all of the items at hand (almost two pages of voting) in under fifteen minutes. The funny thing was that I had my ID in hand ready to give to the person helping at the polls. I was a little shocked when I was not asked.

I really don't see what kind of delay that omeone looking at your ID can take. If someone "has to" (because it is the law) ID me because I look 25 (which has come and gone several years ago) for a beer at the convenience store, surely it would not be out of the realm of reason to expect someone to show their ID when voting. If you set the expectation that you show your ID to vote, people will understand.

In your reply, you said that you would rather keep the voting process easy. I say we take it one step further. As I have shown and explained, would it not be just as simple to keep the process easy AND valid by requiring that a voter show their ID? I think so.

You did not address my question as to whether this would be voted on in the full Senate. While both you and I are entitled to our opinion, why not allow you and your fellow senators the opportunity to make a decision that the people of Oklahoma voted for each and every senator to make for their constituents? Will there be a full vote before the full Senate?

Again, I am going to copy Senator Garrison and Senator Corn on this email and ask them for their reply in this matter.

Again, thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter with me, and I look forward to hearing from everyone and seeing a vote of the full Senate on this matter.

David Sims

Late last night I got this reply from a Yahoo Account with the screen name Tom Adelson, but a different actual address:

David -- Committee chairs hear bills at their discretion. There are over 2,000 bills filed in the Senate. Obviously, it's an important housekeeping matter to limit the number of bills heard on the Senate Floor. Senator Garrison can decide not to hear a bill for a number of reasons. I haven't visited with him about this one but will ask. In any event, I doubt he would hear the bill without first determining the extent of alleged voter fraud. You cannot show up and vote at any precinct. You may only vote in the precinct coordinated with the address listed on your registration. So, if one wanted to "cheat," you would show up and pretend to be someone else. You'd have to know who that someone else is. You'd have to know whether that voter is a likely voter or a dormant voter. You could not show up that many times at the same precinct to vote without being caught. It would take a number of people to carry out widespread fraud. If you want to commit fraud, there are more effective ways to do it. For example, absentee voting is an area perhaps worthy of attention. I haven't seen any evidence of problems with "voter identity theft" and so I don't see the need to require ID cards. With regard to your own voting experience, it's unusual. 72% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats (rough estimates both) vote straight ticket. Regards, Tom

I wonder if I need to hold my breath for replies from Senator Garrison and Senator Corn?

It's strange that Adelson took the occasion of the e-mail to indulge in a little Bush-bashing, and I'm puzzled by the reference to straight-party voting, which I don't see mentioned in David's messages.

Setting that aside, the voter fraud scenario which Adelson sets out and dismisses is precisely what many political observers believe has happened. For $35 you can buy a diskette from the state election board listing every registered voter in a State Senate district. For $150 you can buy a CD-ROM with voter data for the entire state. That data includes the list of elections over the last four years in which the voter has voted, and for each election, it shows whether the vote was cast in person, by absentee ballot, in early voting at the election board, or by some other method. With that information you could easily determine who would be unlikely to appear at a given precinct. A special-interest group could take a team of 30 people and assign each one a name to vote under in each of the 30 or so precincts in a state senate district -- that's 900 fraudulent votes for the group's chosen candidate, or about 3% of the total vote, enough to make the difference in a closely-divided district. In a smaller district, in a special election, or in a primary, the numbers required to make a difference would be even smaller.

Of all the potential avenues for voter fraud, this is one that would be easy and inexpensive to block. Why not?

State Rep. Sue Tibbs is trying to get her voter ID bill heard in the Democrat-controlled Oklahoma Senate, where it has been allowed to languish in the General Government Committee. The bill would require voters to show a driver's license or some other state-issued photo ID. Isn't this an obvious and sensible measure? Don't we want to make sure that only people who are eligible -- those who live in the appropriate district, city, or state -- cast a vote, and that they only vote once? Why do Democrats have such a problem with this?

UPDATE: McGehee comments on a federal lawsuit targeting Georgia's voter identification law. The plaintiffs are claiming the photo ID requirement amounts to an illegal poll tax and is unfair to black, elderly, and rural voters. McGehee says the cost of a Georgia driver's license or photo ID works out to about $3 an election, not counting runoffs and special elections, and ignoring the fact that photo ID is needed for plenty of other occasions. (Via Charles G. Hill.)

With about half of the precincts reporting, the fuel tax increase is failing by a 6 to 1 margin.

In the race to replace State Sen. Angela Monson (District 48, Oklahoma City), Connie Johnson leads with 31%, while Mike Shelton and Willa Johnson are separated by only 11 votes with about 27% each. This looks like one of those races where a two-candidate runoff could fail to produce the candidate that would be preferred by a majority in a head-to-head vote. With the top three candidates so close together, and a sizeable number voting for the 4th and 5th place candidates, it is not even possible to know which two of the top three would finish first and second if only those three were in the race. (This is a primary, but because no Republicans filed for the seat, the Democrat nominee will be elected.)

You'll find the election board vote tally here.

Oklahomans go to the polls today for SQ 723, the proposed fuel tax hike. Don't forget to vote!

Just in case you have any doubts, on Tuesday, I will be voting against an increase in the state gasoline tax (SQ 723). The maintenance of roads and bridges basic necessities is a basic function of state government, and it ought to be one of the first functions to be funded out of the money our state government already receives.

Bobby at Tulsa Topics has been keeping a close watch on this issue. In response to the question, "If not SQ 723, then what?" Bobby has posted recommendations from Tom Elmore. The trucking industry won't care much for his ideas, because he doesn't think commercial freight trucks are paying their fair share for the damage they inflict on our infrastructure.

Joe Kelley caught the tax backers in a bit of spin a while back. You can read his entries on the topic here and here.

The group Oklahomans for Safe Roads and Bridges is using misleading language in its ads to urge voters to pass a gas tax increase on September 13 (State Question 723):

�Every eight days, fourteen Oklahomans die in part because of Oklahoma�s crumbling bridges and bad roads. One of them will be a child.�

Can you find the clinton clause? The words "in part" allow them to use the total annual number of fatalities on Oklahoma's highways and bridges. Joe Kelley spotted this and has the details on his blog, The Sake of Argument.

Got a comment wondering if I'd be writing about the decision of former Congressman J. C. Watts, Jr., not to run for Governor of Oklahoma. I heard Watts on KFAQ this morning. He cited family as the main reason for his decision, wanting to be a part of his kids' lives. He's also discovered that there's a life beyond politics. He seems to be keeping plenty busy.

I am an Oklahoma Republican, I think Brad Henry is leading the state in the wrong direction (to the extent that he is leading at all), and I would dearly love to see him defeated in the 2006 election. I'm sure many Republican activists were very sad to hear J. C.'s announcement, believing that he was the only possible Republican candidate with the name recognition and charisma to defeat Brad Henry.

Of course, in 2002 the Republicans had a candidate with great name recognition and charisma, in the person of Steve Largent -- although you could argue that a QB for the Sooners (during the Barry Switzer glory days, no less) is better known statewide than a Golden Hurrican wide receiver, even if the latter is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (Barry endorsed Brad Henry in 2002. Would he have stayed on the sidelines if Brad's opponent had been one of his former players?) (Watts is listed as one of the legends of the Canadian Football League.)

So who's in the race? Oklahoma Republicans have a deep bench -- plenty of sharp, intelligent, articulate elected officials -- but who wants to challenge an incumbent with such a high approval rating?

My state senator, Jim Williamson, announced his candidacy back in the spring. Williamson, an attorney, served as Senate Minority Leader during the previous legislature. He's been a leader for the pro-life cause and was instrumental in getting this year's landmark legislation passed. He's not yet well known, but those who know him hold him in high regard. (His campaign website is under construction.)

The only other announced candidate is Bob Sullivan, Jr., who was appointed Oklahoma Secretary of Energy by Gov. Frank Keating in 2002. I saw him, but didn't have the chance to talk to him, at this month's Tulsa County Republican Men's Club luncheon. He has a few things on his campaign website, which is actually a Blogger-hosted blog with a domain name redirect. Give him points for ingenuity and frugality -- that's a quick and cheap way to get content up on the web. Bob Sullivan is, as far as I know, no relation to John, Dan, Randy, Ed, Andrew, or Gilbert O', none of whom are related to each other, as far as I know.

House Speaker Todd Hiett is in his last term in the legislature and running for statewide office would be a natural next step. He's been doing plenty of fundraising and working to raise his profile among Republican activists. Being a rural Republican -- he's a dairy farmer -- is a great combination for a statewide race. Theoretically, he'd run as well as Republicans normally do in the cities, but do better in the small towns than a city Republican would. He is awfully young. (I.e., he is younger than I am.) He may choose to aim for a downticket office and wait his turn for a shot at the Governor's mansion.

There's talk about Gary Richardson, the spoiler in the 2002 race, getting in again, this time as a Republican. He shouldn't waste his time or money. You don't spend all your time tearing down the Republican nominee and then come back for years later and get to be the nominee. We haven't forgotten.

Politics1's Oklahoma page also lists Broken Arrow Sen. Scott Pruitt as a potential candidate. He ran a respectable race but finished third in the 2001/2 special primary to replace Steve Largent in Congress. Pruitt would have a strong supporter on Tulsa radio: KFAQ morning host Michael DelGiorno was on Pruitt's campaign team in 2001, and the two are good friends.

Will Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin get back in the governor's race? As in 2002, she looked ready to jump in, but backed out as a presumptive favorite appeared ready to run. She could probably outlast Good Guy George Nigh if she stays in her current office. She's had some high-profile moments as President of the Senate, forcing some issues to the floor that the Democrat majority would rather not confront. Her decision to back out of the 2002 race created the political equivalent of what KRMG traffic reporter Doc Nelson used to call a "three-car Rocky," as Labor Commissioner Brenda Reneau-Wynn backed out of running for Lt. Gov. to run for re-election, facing former State Rep. Tim Pope, who got in the Labor Commissioner race thinking it was an open seat.

Anyone else come to mind for governor? For downticket offices? Post your ideas in the comments.

Terry, blogging at Wild Ramblings, has a good summary of the pros and cons for the August 9 vote in Collinsville, a small town / suburb north of Tulsa. The city, which provides water and electricity to its citizens, wants to buy the natural gas franchise back from Oklahoma Natural Gas. Terry's still undecided. (Hat tip: Roemerman on Record.)

I have heard that the City of Collinsville hopes that the revenues from running the gas franchise will provide the revenue needed to provide city services. Most Collinsville residents do their shopping in Owasso, just a few miles to the south, taking their sales tax dollars with them. Eventually Owasso will reach its growth limits and Collinsville will grow enough to support retail within its boundaries, but until then, someone still has to pay the policemen and fire fighters.

Which reminds me: Matt Galloway of The Basement has more from his dad, Bethany City Manager Dan Galloway, about the inequities of Oklahoma's sales-tax-dependent municipal finance system and a proposal for fixing the problem with numbers estimating the impact of the change on 17 cities, including Tulsa.

This morning the Tulsa Whirled scolded Oklahoma House Speaker Todd Hiett for not expediting the passage of HB 1617, a bill that would impose a nearly $100 million tax increase on specialty hospitals to provide additional funding for Oklahoma's Medicaid system and gain nearly $200 million in federal matching funds.

If HB 1617 had passed, there likely would have been a constitutional challenge over whether the funding was a tax increase or a fee, which affects whether a statewide vote is required.

This afternoon, Speaker Hiett announced a plan -- HB 1088 -- that would appropriate the needed $63 million from existing gas recertification revenues and gain the federal match, without raising taxes or fees. The plan would also direct the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to identify $100 million in "excessive administrative costs, waste, overhead, and program abuses," which Hiett calls an "achievable goal."

You can read Speaker Hiett's press release here.

Senate President Pro Tempore Mike Morgan, a Democrat, was present at the press conference, enthusiastically supporting the GOP proposal. (His remarks begin about 7 minutes into the press conference; you'll find links to audio by following the link to the press release.)

House Republicans have again demonstrated that it does matter who holds the majority in the state legislature. While they've had support from Democrats on key issues -- and Democrat leaders like Mike Morgan deserve credit for not being obstructionists -- the difference this year is the determination of the Republican House leadership and caucus to find a way to solve the problems without abandoning Republican principles. Their brethren in Washington could learn some lessons from our Oklahoma legislators.

Bunny Chambers, Oklahoma's Republican National Committeewoman, closed her remarks with this quote from Edward Everett Hale:

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.

Some odds and ends from this weekend:

Gary Jones and Dana Murphy were reelected without opposition to another two year term as chairman and vice chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party. They've both done a great job, demonstrated by electoral success, another well-run convention, and money in the state party's bank. There was some buzz around the convention about Dana running for statewide office next year. Dana came close to winning the Republican nomination for Corporation Commission in 2002, enduring some nasty attacks from fellow Republicans with a Christ-like spirit of forgiveness. Oklahoma would be greatly blessed to have Dana Murphy as an elected official.

The two-year-old Reed Center is a lovely facility for a smaller convention, but it's inexcusable that such a new venue would lack wireless Internet capability. That's going to become a competitive disadvantage, and I hope the folks planning renovation of Tulsa's convention center include WiFi in their plans. It doesn't add that much to the cost, and it's a way to tell tech-savvy exhibitors and convention-goers that you understand their needs.

Arizona Congressman J. D. Hayworth used about half of his Friday night speech to focus on immigration. He said that we embrace legal immigration, but border security is a national security issue. He will object to attaching any sort of illegal immigrant amnesty to the emergency supplemental defense appropriations bill, even if it means voting against the bill.

Tom Coburn focused on fiscal responsibility during his convention speech. He plans to offer amendments to the upcoming $81 billion emergency supplemental appropriation. The supplemental won't go against the spending caps, and $19 billion of that $81 billion is not to be spent until 2008. Must not be much of an emergency, but by including money in the out years, it will allow appropriators to go back later and grab the money for spending this year, without violating any spending caps, since the money has already been authorized. Neat trick! Coburn also said communication about personal retirement accounts has been terrible. Americans aren't being told that this money is still within Social Security, completely voluntary, and a no-risk proposition. He said that Social Security reform was "intended to protect our children from us." Medicare is an even bigger problem, with an unfunded liability equial to the private net worth of the United States.

Tom Cole surprised me with a thoughtful and relatively brief speech. When I think of the Norman congressman, I think of his years as a tough, competitive political operative. It's easy for me to forget that he is, after all, a fellow social and economic conservative. Cole mentioned that he was a student of British history before entering politics, specializing in the Victorians. He said that the Victorians made the modern world, ending slavery, ending aristocracy as a governing principle, and making countless technological and scientific advances. He called Winston Churchill the last great Victorian -- born and first elected to Parliament during her reign. Alluding to Churchill's famously brief "Never give up" speech, he reviewed the history of the Republican Party, saying after the electoral disasters of 1964, 1974, and 1992, people like the delegates never, never gave up. Cole was (as far as I heard) the only speaker to mention Terri Schiavo, saying how proud he was of Tom DeLay and congressional Republicans for showing leadership by addressing her situation, without anything to gain politically by taking it up. Cole noted that not a single Senate Democrat was willing to take to the floor to defend their efforts to block legislation to help Terri.

Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony reviewed the long history of Oklahoma Republicans standing up for public integrity and for open and honest government -- against the good ol' boy system, against the bribery of Supreme Court justices in the '50s and '60s, against bribery in the 1980s County Commission scandal, against stolen elections, against special deals for special people, against decisions made in smoke-filled rooms. Regarding stolen elections, he mentioned a 1960 congressional race in northwestern Oklahoma, when strange doings in a recount led to a Republican defeat. Unfortunately, Tulsans know that not all elected officials who call themselves Republicans share Commissioner Anthony's commitment to openness and serving the public interest rather than special interests. After the speech, someone reminded me of the attacks Commissioner Anthony suffered when he was first elected to the body that regulates public utilities -- slashed tires and death threats. In light of that no one should be surprised at the heat being thrown at the reformers in Tulsa.

The convention ended about 3:40 p.m., the earliest in my memory. The afternoon speakers had mercy on the audience, which began to drift away after the vote to reelect the chairman and vice chairman.

As I wrote earlier, Virginia Sen. George Allen delivered this morning's keynote speech at the Oklahoma Republican Convention at the Reed Center in Midwest City. During the speech, he praised Oklahoma's Republican leaders, looked back at what was achieved during his term as Governor of Virginia, reviewed the 2004 successes of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which he headed, looked at what's been accomplished since the election, and looked ahead to some of the legislative challenges yet to be addressed. Except for the skillful way he worked in his gubernatorial accomplishments, it was the sort of speech you'd expect from a U. S. Senator, and didn't strike me as an effort to position himself as a presidential contender. (It's a bit early for that, anyway. He is likely to face a tough re-election challenge from Gov. Mark Warner in 2006.)

Allen was introduced by Oklahoma's senior U. S. Senator, Jim Inhofe. Allen began his speech by saluting many of Oklahoma's elected officials by name, a daring move -- he bobbled only a few (Congressman "Lewis" instead of Lucas). He spoke about Oklahoma's athletic accomplishments. He said that Oklahoma has produced more astronauts than any other state. (Per capita or raw numbers?) He dropped the names of famous Oklahomans in entertainment, past and present, praised our congressional delegation, spoke of Inhofe as "an unflinching leader," celebrated Tom Coburn's successful defense of Don Nickles' senate seat, and congratulated us on gaining the majority in the State House of Representatives. Remembering Tuesday's 10th anniversary of the Murrah Building bombing, he praised Frank and Cathy Keating for their "poised leadership" at that time.

Allen called the armed forces our "most valuable players." He said called the current death gratuity of $12,000 a "paltry, miserly, insulting amount" and said he introduced legislation to increase that amount to $100,000 retroactive to October 2001.

Blogging will continue to be light for the next couple of days, as my wife and I head to Midwest City's Reed Center for the Oklahoma Republican Convention and some kid-free relaxation. I'm hoping to be able to live-blog some of the proceedings. Tonight Arizona Rep. J. D. Hayworth will be speaking at a banquet honoring J. C. Watts, and the keynote speaker tomorrow will be Sen. George Allen of Virginia. A political blog from his homestate (named Sic Semper Tyrannis after the Commonwealth's motto) has contacted me, asking me to report on his speech. He's a potential presidential candidate in 2008, and it will be interesting to see how he's received by grass-roots Oklahoma Republicans. Oklahoma will hold is presidential primary the first Tuesday in February, so we should be receiving a lot of attention from the contenders.

The Oklahoma Republican Party still has its struggles, but we've rescued the State House, held on to both U. S. Senate seats and four of five congressional seats, won every county in the state for George W. Bush, and have hopes of capturing the State Senate and Governor's Mansion in 2006. I give thanks for our situation every time I read something about the New York Republican Party on Slant Point like this or on Alarming News like this. Actually, there's a sign of hope in that Slant Point entry, and I hope to write more about that later.

"Doverspa" of RedState.org commented on my earlier post about voter fraud that fellow RedState.org contributor Erick Erickson has helped draft a tough voter ID bill currently working its way through the Georgia legislature. Here's the Macon Telegraph story and Erick's entry on the bill.

The Republican-controlled Oklahoma House has passed several important pro-life bills, but they're being held up by a Democrat Senate committee chairman, according to Rep. Kevin Calvey's "Capitol Update":

House Republicans Move forward with Pro-Life Legislation, despite Senate Maneuvers

Joined by a woman who shared her personal story about abortion, House Republican leaders said today they would continue to press for pro-life legislation during the 2005 session.

"These issues surpass party lines," said Rep. Kevin Calvey (R-Del City), author of House Bill 1543, the Women's Right to Know and the Family Protection Act. "Unfortunately, Senate leadership today attempted to brush off these issues entirely by passing a watered-down bill at the eleventh hour.

"Senate Democrats apparently do not realize the widespread support across the state for these measures. They've garnered bi-partisan support here in the House, and it's time for the will of the people to be respected."

Three pro-life measures have bogged down in the Senate after receiving overwhelming support in the House weeks ago. Earlier today, a Senate committee passed a watered-down measure, in an attempt to distract attention from core reforms.

The bills that have failed to receive a hearing in the Senate are:

* HB 1257 - The Oklahoma Unborn Victim of Violence Act, a "Laci & Conner Peterson" law.
* HB 1258 - Establishes a criminal punishment for anyone other than a physician who distributes a pill to induce an abortion.
* HB 1543 - Women's Right to Know and the Family Protection Act.

Valeska Littlefield, an outspoken pro-woman advocate and Tulsa resident, today joined lawmakers as she shared her story about having an abortion. HB 1543 would require more thorough counseling for women considering an abortion, a common-sense measure Littlefield said would have changed her decision.

"I regret having had an abortion," said Littlefield. "It is a decision that has affected my entire life. If I had known more at the time, I would have decided to see my pregnancy through."

Other pro-life advocates also spoke in support of Calvey's measure. "The legislation proposed by Representative Calvey is very modest, but badly needed," said Tony Lauinger, state chair of Oklahomans for Life. "The substitute passed this morning in a Senate committee fails to address the urgent need for a woman to be given comprehensive information about the development of her unborn child."

"These measures represent the culture of life in our state, the core values of hardworking Oklahomans," said Rep. Pam Peterson (R-Tulsa), the author of HB 1257, a measure to institute a "Laci & Conner Peterson" law in Oklahoma. "And we're not going to relent just because a powerful Senator has decided to ignore the concerns of voters."

HB 1543, the Women's Right to Know and the Family Protection Act, passed the House overwhelmingly in early March. Calvey says the informed consent law would require that a woman considering an abortion would be told by a physician about the medical risks involved with specific procedures, as well as developmental information about the unborn child.

HB 1543 also requires the knowledge of a parent before a minor can receive an abortion. Currently more than half the states in the nation have informed consent laws.

"Oklahomans don't want to see these pro-family issues put on the backburner," said Rep. Lance Cargill (R-Harrah), the House Majority Floor Leader and a strong advocate for pro-life legislation. "These measures offer common-sense solutions to problems, and they should be passed quickly."

Representative Thad Balkman (R-Norman), chair of the House Republican Caucus agreed: "Every Oklahoman understands that criminals should be held accountable for their acts, and that parents should have the right to know about a child's decision. It's time to act on these issues for the betterment of our state."

The powerful senator to whom Rep. Peterson refers is Bernest Cain, Democrat chairman of the Senate Human Services Committee, who infamously compared pro-life Christians to Nazis and called them "the right wing of the Taliban."

Here's a conversation Don Danz had at his polling place last Tuesday:

Me: Hi. (smiling)

Poll Worker 1: Last name? (smiling)

Me: Danz...Don Danz. (now with dead serious expression and tone) But, I'm not really him. And, you can't do anything about it because you can't ask for my ID. (I sign my name�or at least my alias for that precinct)

Poll Worker 2: We don�t care. (hands me my ballots)

Poll Worker 3: The state of Oklahoma doesn't care. (everyone exchanges knowing smiles and small chuckles as it's obvious I'm making a point with which the workers agree)

Me: (after having voted) We'll I'm off to go vote in a few more precincts.

Poll Worker 2: Good luck.

Oklahoma has no way to prevent voter fraud and no practical way to detect it if it occurs. Requiring photo ID to vote would not be foolproof, but it would prevent someone walking in and voting under someone else's name. Republican legislators have tried to pass such a requirement, but the Democrats have always blocked it, claiming it would intimidate minority and elderly voters. Don says that's hogwash:

This is not only untrue but, also, incredibly insulting to blacks and the elderly. I guess blacks and old people don�t use checks or credit cards either because they are too scared someone will want to see some ID. What a load of crap.

The only real reason to oppose checking identification is that in some places Democrats rely on widespread voter fraud in order to be elected. There simply is no other reason to oppose mandatory photo identification before voting.

Oklahoma election officials are justly proud of our optical ballot readers, which gives us the ability to obtain quick and accurate results while still having a paper record of each vote, preserving the option of a manual count. But a ballot reader is like any other computer -- Garbage In, Garbage Out -- and it can't detect a ballot cast fraudulently. We've had too many close elections that could have been swayed by even a tiny amount of fraud: House District 78 in 2004 was decided by less than 30 votes; the 2002 Governor's race was decided by less than three votes per precinct.

In a voting system that is truly one person, one vote, only an eligible voter would cast a ballot, each voter would vote only once and would vote only in the district in which he currently lives. Oklahoma has no requirement to ensure that any of those conditions are met. For the sake of democracy, it's time we fixed that.

Mike of Okiedoke links to a fascinating article by Brad Carson about why he lost to Tom Coburn. If I read it correcly, Carson is saying he had to tell different stories to different crowds, while Coburn could campaign with the same message everywhere. I swear I thought the clip Mike posted was a parody at first.

Mike's comments and advice to the Democrats are well worth reading. I may comment after I get some sleep.

The highlight of the morning session was a 35 minute speech by Tulsa Mayor Bill LaFortune. It was a defense of his record as a reformer and a strong mayor. The recurring catchphrase was, "You should know the facts." Throughout LaFortune referred to himself in the third person as "your mayor." You can download audio of the whole speech from this page.

I'm sure we'll be going over the speech in detail on KFAQ Monday morning. The Mayor defended his trip to Israel, defended his record of action to clean up the airport, defended his appointments to boards dealing with land use (planning commission and Board of Adjustment), reaffirmed his opposition to recall, spoke about positive economic developments, talked up his reactivation of the Economic Development Commission, talked about plans for the river, and laid out the stats showing that Tulsa is on track to be at the ideal number of police officers in a year.

The Mayor said that recall gives the city a black eye, and went on to say that recall "will deter and halt progress worse than any statement or any vote by any city councilor." Someone told me that as he spoke those words, Councilor Susan Neal nodded her head in agreement. I will look forward to Councilor Neal's vote to put off the recall vote on Tuesday, and I will look forward to her public statement in opposition to recall. Councilor Neal stuck around long enough to be introduced with the other elected officials just before lunch, then she skedaddled. I'll give her credit -- Councilors Bill Christiansen and Randy Sullivan didn't even bother showing up.

The Mayor also announced that he will be appointing Mike Bernard, a Vice President of Oral Roberts University, to replace Joe Westervelt on the TMAPC. The Mayor said that Bernard was over the management of ORU's CityPlex Towers (the old City of Faith), which means that we have yet another planning commissioner who is professionally involved in real estate. Where's the balance?

There was a fascinating, sympathetic profile of Senator-elect Tom Coburn in today's Washington Post. (Hat tip: Redstate.org)

Some highlights:

When the "Marvelous Seven" new Republican senators are introduced to the media, reporters ignore the others and swarm around Coburn like bees to soda pop, waiting for him to fizz. But he is prepared. Dr. Coburn, what about partial birth abortion? they ask the senator-elect from Oklahoma. Dr. Coburn, what about gay marriage? What about values, Dr. Coburn?

But he resists unleashing one of his prophetic warnings from the campaign about "rampant lesbianism" or abortion doctors getting the death penalty or the venality of your average Washington politician. Instead, he says he'll be cautious, observant, collegial: "I promise you I'll be sleeping every night with that rule book," he says, meaning "Riddick's Senate Procedure," a 1,500-page manual. ...

The subject that truly obsesses Coburn, the one he comes back to over and over, is not homosexuality or abortion, but fiscal responsibility -- spending, the deficit, entitlements. To Coburn, fiscal issues are moral ones. "It is evil to spend your kids' money, spend away their future," he says about the ballooning deficit. "It is good to be frugal. This is good and evil, black and white. Stealing from your kids is wrong. I don't care who you are."

In his book, Coburn reserves his greatest contempt for Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), then chairman of the House Transportation Committee and a "grandmaster of pork." During his last year in Congress, Coburn nearly shut down the House by threatening to attach 130 amendments to an agriculture appropriations bill he thought was too larded up.

The headlines called the budget passed by Congress last month the stingiest in years on domestic spending. But Coburn views it as business as usual, stuffed with pet projects. "Everyone's tickled," he says. "But they just added 2,000 bucks to everyone's debt, not including Social Security. We're proud of that? We ought to be disgusted."

There's a good deal of biographical info in the story as well. Worth reading.

Just got word that the House District 78 hand recount is complete, and Democrat Jeannie McDaniel remains the winner, by 24 votes. That represents a narrowing of the original margin of 34 votes. The changes resulted from ballots where too light a mark was missed by the scanners (particularly a problem with absentee ballots, which are marked with pencil rather than black ink), or where a stray mark was registered as an overvote. Condolences to Republican nominee David Schaffer, who ran a great race against a tough opponent -- I hope he'll give it another shot. To win reelection in two years McDaniel will have to demonstrate to this swing district that she can be effective despite being in the minority party. In this campaign she was able to soft-pedal her views on the issues, but in two years she'll have a voting record, and District 78 voters will be able to decide if her views reflect their own.

Republican nominee David Schaffer has requested a hand recount in the Oklahoma House District 78 race. Initial returns show him losing by 34 votes to Democrat nominee Jeannie McDaniel -- only a couple of votes per precinct. There were ballot scanner problems in precinct 157 -- the ballots in that precinct were rerun through the machine on election night and produced an increase in votes for Schaffer.

The recount happens today in the Tulsa County Courthouse in Judge Tom Gillert's courtroom at 9:30 am.

The fact that we can have this recount and cope with a voting machine problem is an indication of the superiority of Oklahoma's approach to counting votes. We fall short in voter authentication, but there is a tangible, persistent record of those votes which are cast, unlike the touchscreen systems and the old-fashioned mechanical tallying systems which leave no records, at least none which can be verified by the voter and which are human-readable.

A friend in the New York City metro area writes to congratulate me on Oklahoma's 66% support for President Bush. My correspondent expresses interest in relocating to such a solidly conservative state.

Well, look before you leap. You'll still find some angry, cranky folks in that remaining 34%. Sure, most Kerry-Okies will calmly resign themselves to this reminder of their minority status in a place where most folks are misguided but are nevertheless friendly. Oklahoma and its people may be weird, but Oklahoma is home.

But you have a minority of that minority who are stuck here against their will. NPR on the FM dial, home delivery of the New York Times, Borders, Utica Square, the museums, the opera, the ballet, and the coffee bars (local indies and national chains alike) all help to insulate these folks from the indignity of living in Oklahoma. And just like the most abrasive of the liberal majority in Manhattan, these beleagured Tulsa lefties assume that anyone who is intelligent, anyone who is hip, anyone who shares their love of high culture, good writing, and an expensive cup of coffee must be a liberal, too, like this woman my friend Richard Spears encountered in Starbucks the day after the election. Richard writes:

I met Charlie, our 15 year old, at the bus stop and wisked him to Starbucks for a spontaneous and way-too-infrequent hour of just talking: School, girls, the campaign, faith. Just as I launched into a quick description of a provisional ballot, the gal sitting 5 feet away from us leaned over a asked, "What are you, some sort of politician?" She was a 30 year old wife in a pullover sweatshirt who had been intensely studying her biology notes during the 40 minutes we chatted. I said no, my son and I just try to be informed voters with an open mind.

(As you know, Mike, I would define the right side of the political spectrum were it not for my very real interest in NPR, which drags me half a notch left.)

Then, with hardly a pause to breathe, this stranger, assuming we were fellow left-leaning Democrats (she heard the word "informed" and assumed we were Liberals, no doubt), launched into a diatribe that touched upon:

Warning: Heavy number-crunching follows.

Republicans won 9 (possibly 10, pending a recount) out of the 23 open Oklahoma House seats previously held by Democrats, plus they replaced incumbent Democrat Roy McClain with Dan Sullivan in House 71 (a 13 point margin). Republicans lost one incumbent -- Stuart Ericson (HD 13) was swamped by a Brad Carson turnout push in the Carson's 2nd Congressional District and lost to Jerry McPeek by 347 votes (3%). A net pickup of 8 gives Republicans 57 seats to 44 for the Democrats. If David Schaffer (HD 78) prevails in a recount, the score would go to 58-43, just nine votes short of a two-thirds majority.

SoonerPoll.com made their State House picks last week and even polled 17 key races -- 13 open Democrat seats, two incumbent Democrat seats, and two open Republican seats. Let's compare their picks to the results in open Democrat seats (SoonerPoll rating in parentheses after the seat number, and poll result where available, MOE +/- 4.4%).

SoonerPoll.com came very near the result (within MOE) in Districts 10, 12, 55, 59, 64, 78, and 92. They didn't poll a couple of races that turned out to be upsets -- Districts 5 and 42, which were rated likely D but went Republican, and District 13, a likely R seat held by an incumbent that went D. In some cases, they got the winner right but were way off on the margin -- like HD 30, and HD 33, supposedly a 1.5% leaner, which ended up a 28 point landslide.

Other "leaning D" seats went heavily for the Republican: In HD 27, they polled it as leaning D by 2.7 but it was won by the Republican by 12 points. The two open Republican seats they had as leaners, but the Republicans won by double-digits.

I give a lot of credit to SoonerPoll.com for making the effort to poll these races and making the result public. There are some improvements to be made, either in their likely voter screen or their random selection method. The Republican GOTV effort probably accounts for the bigger-than-expected margins.

Race-by-race info after the jump.

State Question 707 takes several creative financial manuevers that local governments are already permitted to do, and allows them to commit to doing them over several years.

Already, a local government can set up a Tax Increment Finance district to capture increased tax revenue in a redeveloping area and use that incremental revenue to make improvements within the district. The district around Home Depot in downtown Tulsa generated the revenue to pay for the streets and utilities for the Village at Central Park.

Already, a local government can pledge its own revenues to other governmental bodies. Oklahoma City did this with "MAPS for Kids", raising the sales tax and directing the proceeds to the many, many school districts that overlap with OKC's municipal boundaries.

But these arrangements have to be renewed on a year-to-year basis. This means that governments can't issue revenue bonds borrow against anticipated future receipts from these sources, as they can do with sales taxes, use taxes, and property taxes.

As I understand it, 707 would allow these sorts of revenues to be committed for multiple years, and rather than be limited by pay-as-you-go, local governments could issue revenue bonds against those anticipated revenues. This would make it possible to undertake larger projects that would take too long to complete if it had to be done pay-as-you-go.

On the one hand, nearly every other revenue source available to local government can be pledged against revenue bonds. This puts these special sources of revenue on par with garden variety property tax and sales tax.

On the other hand, these sources of income aren't necessarily as reliable as more traditional sources, and it's possible that a city could get in over its head.

I'm also concerned about giving local governments the ability to fund bigger projects before the Supreme Court rules on the propriety of using eminent domain to transfer land from the current private owner to another private owner. If the Court affirms that such a practice is unconstitutional, I'd be less concerned about eminent domain abuse being facilitated by the ability to issue long-term debt for such purposes.

At the moment I'm leaning in favor.

The trend among Democrat campaigns this year is to blur distinctions, to pose the Democrat as a conservative, and to pretend that the Republican is not really a good conservative. We've seen this in the presidential race, and in the U. S. Senate race in Oklahoma, where Democrats have tried to find some pretext for laying claim to the pro-life mantle, while trying to paint their Republican opponents as insufficiently pro-life.

In one sense, this is an encouraging trend, inasmuch as it demonstrates that conservatives are on many issues setting the terms of the debate. The question is whether the voters will understand how Democrat candidates are trying to trick them into believing that up is down and left is right.

That technique has been filtering down into state legislative races. A friend who lives in House District 23 received a hit piece by Democrat David Mitchell Garrett, Jr., attacking Republican incumbent Sue Tibbs. I haven't seen the ad, but it shook up my friend, a good conservative, enough to make him wonder whether he should vote for Sue Tibbs. A flyer saying "she's too conservative" would not have fazed my friend, so I'm guessing the ad said she wasn't conservative enough. I assured him that Sue Tibbs is the conservative candidate in the race and is a great state legislator.

In Senate District 33, a seat made open by term limits, Republican former Tulsa City Councilor Dewey Bartlett Jr. is making a strong run in a long-time Democrat seat against Democrat Tom Adelson. Adelson is responding to the challenge by distorting Dewey Bartlett's record.

Last night I received photocopies of four mail pieces sent out by the Adelson campaign. One has a picture of a senior with his head in his hands and the caption "Taxes too high?" On the reverse, you see a kind of split screen -- Bartlett on the left against a dark background, photoshopped to look like he's holding a big bag of money; Adelson on the right against a light background with a kind of smirk on his face. The text on Bartlett's side says that as a city councilor, "Dewey raised city sales taxes by $230 million." On Adelson's side it says, "Tom Adelson says NO to tax hikes without a vote of the people." (The piece doesn't have the word Bartlett anywhere on it, apparently to avoid triggering positive memories of Dewey Bartlett Sr., the popular Republican governor and senator.

The vote in question was to put a renewal of the City of Tulsa's "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements before a vote of the people. As far as I remember, all nine councilors voted in favor of putting the proposition before the people. The vote didn't and couldn't raise the sales tax -- only the citizens could do that -- and it was a renewal of a tax, not a tax increase. Did Tom Adelson oppose the 1991 third penny renewal?

Surely Adelson knows better. His leading supporters, among whom is at least one member of Savage's staff during her time as mayor, know better. It's a shame to see someone who could have run and honest and honorable campaign put out a blatantly dishonest piece. This ought to make even partisan Democrats think twice about voting for Tom Adelson.

I'm sure the Democrats' cognitive dissonance approach to campaigning will work with some voters, but I'm hopeful that most Oklahomans can recognize it when a campaign is distorting reality to this extent.

(You can read an Urban Tulsa interview with Bartlett and Adelson on Dewey Bartlett's campaign website.)

One more thing: Have a look at the questionnaires and voter guides linked above. It's striking in how many cases the Democrat candidate refused even to return a questionnaire, much less respond. For example, in House District 78, Democrat Jeannie McDaniel failed to respond to the questionnaires of the Oklahoma Family Policy Council, Oklahomans for Life, and the Oklahoma Prosperity Project. (Republican David Schaffer replied to all of them.) That can only mean that the candidate is out of accord with the aims of the organization issuing the questionnaire but is unwilling to say so on the record.

Michelle Malkin has her eye on the Oklahoma Senate race between Tom Coburn, "one of [her] all -time favorite conservatives," and Brad Carson, of whom she says:

Carson is a slimy campaigner. And a punk.

Read it all here. She provides links refuting Carson's attempts to muddy the water over Tom Coburn's pro-life credentials.

I'm intrigued by her reference to "another slimy Rhodes Scholar politician." I guess she's thinking of Bill Clinton, but I wonder if she has others in mind as well. I have heard that the skills required to win a Rhodes Scholarship are useful for engaging in slimy politics.

Tom Coburn's campaign for Senate will roll into Woodward Park in Tulsa, 21st & Peoria, for a rally at 12:30 pm today. Senator Don Nickles, Senator Jim Inhofe, Congressman John Sullivan, and Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin will all be speaking. If you haven't made it to a rally this campaign season, this is your last chance!

Two Supreme Court justices, a member of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and five members of the Court of Civil Appeals are up for retention -- yes or no for another term.

It is difficult to get information on Oklahoma judges. The Oklahoma Family Policy Council put together a questionnaire focusing on judicial philosophy. They had their attorneys look at the questionnaire to ensure that judges would not violate Oklahoma's Code of Judicial Conduct by answering the questions. In the end, six of the eight judges sent a letter saying they couldn't respond to the questionnaire, the other two didn't respond at all.

Someone knowledgable and trustworthy tells me that Supreme Court Justice James R. Winchester (a Keating appointee and registered Republican) deserves retention, while Charles Chapel on the Court of Criminal Appeals (a Democrat and a Walters appointee) does not.

The only indicator I have as to the philosophy of these judges (short of analyzing individual decisions) is their voter registration and which governor appointed them. In addition to Justice Winchester, E. Bay Mitchell (his slogan should be -- "E. Bay is not for sale to the highest bidder) on the Court of Civil Appeals is the only other Republican and Keating appointee up for retention. I'll vote for Winchester and Mitchell and against the rest of them. If anyone wants to persuade me otherwise, e-mail me at blog -at- batesline.com.

This one sounds like a good deal -- tax the smokers to pay for indigent health care. But there's more to it than that.

Passing 713 would end the sales tax on tobacco products. This means that cities and counties would no longer get any revenue when a tobacco product is purchased. This would be devastating at a time when city budgets are especially tight. It's estimated that Tulsa would lose $13 million a year in sales tax revenues, Oklahoma City would lose $26 million a year. (Numbers cited in this online debate at soonerpolitics.com) While the state would reimburse cities and counties for lost revenue for the first two years, after those two years, cities and counties are on their own to scrounge up the difference in funds. Where is Tulsa going to find an extra $13 million to pay for basic city services?

I'm voting NO on SQ 713.

Some people say that State Question 711 is a ban on same-sex "marriage". It's not. Some say it's an attack on personal freedoms and personal choices. Wrong again.

SQ 711 would prevent the government from forcing citizens to recognize homosexual relationships as if they were real marriages. That's why I'm supporting it.

Under SQ 711, if a minister wants to perform a religious ceremony involving two men; two women; two men, a woman, and a pinata; a man, a goat, a toothbrush and no suitcase; or any other combination and to call the result a marriage, they will still have the freedom to do that. 711 simply ensures that the rest of us -- employers, landlords, small businesses, churches -- won't be forced to treat these various combinations as if they were real marriages.

Some people say a constitutional amendment is unnecessary, but the Oklahoma Constitution has an "equal protection" clause similar to the one in Massachusetts which was used by the State Supreme Court there to force the legislature to pass a bill providing legal recognition for same-sex "marriage". It's only a matter of time until some overweening judge tries the same thing in Oklahoma.

Live and let live, but don't coerce me into giving you my approval and support.

You can read more at the site of Oklahomans for the Protection of Marriage. And MarriageDebate.com takes a broader national and cultural perspective on the debate about what marriage means and how it should be protected.

SQ 708 would reduce the amount of the rainy day fund that the Legislature can spend during revenue shortfalls and emergencies. This is a good thing. The Legislature has declared emergencies at the drop of a hat and spent reserve funds when it was merely "partly sunny" leaving nothing in the bank for the really rainy days of the recent recession. This amendment would impose some needed restraint. I'm voting YES.

A lot of people have been asking me about the state questions. Here are three more -- the gambling questions. I'm voting NO on all three. Gambling won't grow the economy, and won't provide any significant money for education. In fact, gambling will take money out of the local economy and it preys on the mathematically challenged.

SQ 705: OCPA has an extensive analysis here comparing the promises made for Oklahoma's lottery to the experience of other states. Lotteries don't bring in the money promised, and all too often the money is diverted for purposes other than that which was promised. Lottery fatigue sets in after a couple of years, and states have to resort to ever more advertising and new games to keep the money flowing. A lottery diverts discretionary spending from restaurants and movies and other small businesses. Most important, SQ 705 does not create an untouchable lockbox for educational funds. It is a statute, not a constitutional amendment. Passing SQ 705 is the same as if the legislature passed a law -- the legislature can amend it without a vote of the people. In particular, the legislature could change the percentage of lottery proceeds going to education.

SQ 706: This is a constitutional amendment that creates a public trust to hold funds from the lottery, but it does not specify how much (if any) of the lottery money will actually end up in the fund. That's in the statute passed by SQ 705, which is subject to change by the legislature without a vote of the people. This trust is only a lockbox for whatever funds the legislature decides to put into it.

SQ 712: This is also a statutory measure, not a constitutional amendment. If we're going to have casinos in Oklahoma, anyone ought to be able to open one. This bill only allows Indian governments and horse tracks to offer gambling, and then only certain machines are permitted. The evils of gambling aside for a moment, this has all the marks of a stitch up -- a special deal for well-connected people. If you aren't in on this deal, evidently you didn't give enough to Brad Henry's campaign for governor.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which was created by Congress in 1996 and completed its work in 1999, has a website here. its final report online here, and a summary of the report's recommendations here. It appears that, if Oklahoma approves these three measures, we will be going directly against the advice of this commission.

You can find more information on the website for the opposition, Oklahomans for Good Goverment.

There are only two Tulsa County races on the ballot tomorrow -- the other officials whose terms are expiring (District Attorney, Sheriff, Court Clerk) were re-elected without opposition.

Republican Earlene Wilson is running for re-election as County Clerk, winning her first term in 2000 upon the retirement of Joan Hastings. Wilson has a solid record of accomplishment, continuing the long-range project of computerizing all county land records. I support Earlene Wilson's re-election. My only knock against her is that she is opposed to making land records available over the Internet, citing cost and security concerns. Many jurisdictions provide wonderful online land record browsing capabilities -- I've written about systems provided by Savannah, Georgia (developed with OU's help) and Wichita, Kansas. So for now, records will only be available at libraries, or if you're willing to pay a hefty subscription fee.

Wilson's Democrat opponent is David Donnell, who seems like a nice guy, but admits to running just as a way to get started in politics. At a candidate forum, he was more interested in talking about global and national issues than what he would do differently as County Clerk.

Residents of County Commission District 2 -- mostly Tulsa County west of the river, plus midtown Tulsa (map here) -- will vote to give a full term on the commission to one of the candidates. Incumbent Republican Randi Miller, currently the commission chairman, was elected in a special election in 2002 (after the resignation of predecessor John Selph). Patty J. Dixon finished just ahead of Miller in the 2002 Republican primary and just behind Miller in the runoff -- she's running again this year, but as an Independent. Max Givens is the Democrat nominee.

I've had my disagreements with Miller, particularly over Vision 2025 and the reappointment of Baker Horner to the TMAPC, but she's taken some important steps to improve openness and accountability at the County Courthouse. For example, the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority (aka the Fair Board) now does all its purchasing through the county's central purchasing office. Miller has played a key role in straightening out the County's budget mess and in trying to find cost savings in the operation of the County Jail. While I like Patty Dixon and appreciate her passion for county government, I do not want to see her split off enough of the Republican vote to bring about a Max Givens victory. Max Givens does not seem knowledgable about county government and would not push for needed reforms. At a candidate forum, he seemed to blame Miller for the fact that the County's budget problems didn't come to light until she became a commissioner. Miller deserves credit for putting the focus on the County's budget process and addressing the problems, rather than pretending that they aren't there. I'm voting for Randi Miller for County Commission District 2.

I've volunteered to report on Oklahoma's election results for The Command Post 2004 Presidential Election blog. Bloggers from all 50 states and around the world will be posting as results come in on election night. Unlike many blogs, the content on The Command Post is intended to be "just the facts" -- no commentary. While the mainstream media is just talking about the Presidential race, you'll find a lot of depth on The Command Post -- congressional races, battles for control of state legislatures, important referenda. Expect to read not just who is leading in Florida and Ohio, but which counties the results are coming from and which counties haven't been heard from yet.

I'm planning to focus on the Senate race, the battle for the State Legislature, and the State Questions. You'll find my first entry right here.

SoonerPoll.com has Coburn up by 9 points in their latest poll, with big gains in the metro areas.

SoonerPoll.com also conducted polls in 17 competitive State House districts, surveying 300 voters in each for a margin of error of +/- 4.4%. The 17 seats are currently held by 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Republicans are leading in 8 seats, Democrats in 9, for a gain of 6 and a majority of 54.

Of the 17, only two show a lead outside the margin of error -- incumbent Democrat Al Lindley in District 93 in Oklahoma City leads by 4.5%, and in Tulsa's District 71 Dan Sullivan leads incumbent Democrat Roy McClain by 6.2%.

The other Tulsa-area seats polled were District 10, where Steve Martin (R) is leading the wife of the incumbent by 2.1%, District 30, where Brian Bingman (R) leads with 2.8%, District 12, where Mark Wofford (R) trails by 1.2%, and District 78, where David Schaffer (R) trails by 2.1%.

Keith Gaddie has some comments on the pollsters who poll Oklahoma over at SoonerPolitics.com.

A live televised forum about Oklahoma's state questions will be aired on KOKI Fox 23 (Tulsa Cable channel 5) tonight from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. Don't know if it will be aired anywhere in Oklahoma City. If you'd like to attend in person, doors open at 7 p.m. at the Fox 23 studios at 26th and Memorial (where Oertle's used to be, if you're old enough to remember, or where Burlington Coat Factory used to be, if you're not).

Here's how I'm voting:

705: NO
706: NO
707: Still undecided
708: YES
711: YES
712: NO
713: NO
714: YES
715: YES

Syndicated columnist Terence Jeffrey writes today about the efforts of House Republicans, led by Tulsa Congressman John Sullivan, to increase immigration enforcement in parts of the country that are far from the nation's borders. Why does it matter? Here's Jeffrey's lead paragraph:

Were terrorists to sneak across our border today and need a place to hide, a rational analysis of U.S. immigration enforcement would point them toward Tulsa, Okla. There is little chance the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would look for them there.

The U.S. government rarely enforces immigration laws in Tulsa -- even though the government says there are tens of thousands of illegal aliens in Oklahoma. This could begin changing, however, if House Republicans get their way in ongoing negotiations with the Senate over the final language of the intelligence reform bill being crafted in response to the 9/11 Commission report.

The bill would double the number of Border Patrol agents from 10,000 to 20,000, triple the number of ICE investigations officers from 2,000 to 6,000, guarantee at least three new ICE agents in every state, and give the Department of Homeland Security more authority to quickly deport illegals from countries other than Mexico.

Sullivan is pushing specifically for agents for Tulsa, following two incidents in which van loads of illegal aliens had to be released because no ICE agents were available and there was nowhere that the suspected illegals could be detained while waiting for the agents. Although Sullivan had succeeded in tripling the number of ICE agents in Oklahoma from two to six, there still wasn't coverage in Tulsa when the latest incident occurred last month:

Just before midnight on Sept. 21, police from the Tulsa suburb of Catoosa stopped a truck for speeding on Interstate 44. There were 18 people on board, including teen-agers. Only two had valid identification. The others were suspected of being illegal aliens. One was arrested for possessing a substance thought to be cocaine. ICE told the police to let the rest go.

The Tulsa World reported: "Because no holding facility was available, [ICE regional spokesman Carl] Rusnok said, the individuals would have had to stay out on the road for several more hours before an agent could arrive at the scene. 'That's just geography,' he said."

More than three years after Sept. 11, 2001, Tulsa, Okla. -- in the heart of the heartland -- remains beyond the perimeter of U.S. immigration enforcement.

So John Sullivan has a bill that specifically requires the stationing of ICE agents in Tulsa. The ability to control our borders is crucial to our national security. If illegals get beyond our borders -- not tough, given the length of our borders -- we've got to be able to deal with them anywhere in the country we may find them. It's good to know that we have a Congressman in Tulsa who understands the importance of the issue.

To no one's surprise, Little Boy Brad Carson has already broken his pledge to stop his negative attack ads. He's again trying to muddy the waters on the abortion issue with a radio ad saying that Tom Coburn's trying to hide his record on abortion. This ad is a clear desperation move as Carson's campaign slips downward. It is part of what appears to be a nationwide effort to confuse pro-life voters as to who really stands with them on their motivating issue. (See my earlier entries here and here on Chris Matthews' wild claim on "Hardball" that President Bush isn't really pro-life.)

Carson's radio ad has a heartbeat sound in the background, and features a very familiar voice telling a series of what are probably half-truths at best, worded to make it sound like Tom Coburn is out taking a machete to every pregnant woman in Oklahoma. The heartbeat stops after this line: "Tom Coburn is the only person in this race who has personally committed abortions."

The ad is not from an independent organization. It's paid for by Carson for Senate, Inc., and is tagged with Brad Carson's personal approval.

This is low-down and dirty. Brad Carson has a legislative record and a personal commitment to legal abortion. Tom Coburn is an eloquent defender of the unborn and has the legislative record to back up his words. Here is the factsheet from National Right to Life comparing the records of Carson and Coburn on the sanctity of human life. As an obstetrician, Coburn has twice had to perform surgeries to save a pregnant woman's life due to an ectopic pregnancy.

Here's what the Coburn campaign says about the radio ad:

Radio ads with the "approved by Brad Carson" tagline have been running across the state calling Dr. Coburn an abortionist, despite Carson's pledge that voters would hear no more negative attacks from his campaign. Senator Don Nickles has said that Brad Carson is running a campaign of "character assassination" that is "a new low in Oklahoma politics" - and this confirms it.

"Does Brad Carson have any shame at all?" asked Coburn spokesman John Hart. "He lied to all of Oklahoma by saying repeatedly - both in the debate last night and in television ads - that he would end his negative personal attacks. Instead he has found a new low, smearing a family physician with a 100 percent pro-life record in Congress."

Dr. Tom Coburn has been endorsed by Oklahoma Right to Life and National Right to Life in the Senate race, because of his strong pro-life record. He has been a family doctor, helping women and children in Oklahoma, for almost 20 years. In the course of those many years, it was twice necessary to end a pregnancy. In those cases, the mother's heart and lungs had failed, and both mother and child were about to die. So, Dr. Coburn did what he had to do to save the life of the mother.

Dr. Coburn grieved for those lost children, and agonized over their deaths. "Those were heartbreaking, heartbreaking decisions," said Dr. Coburn. "But I think if you asked those women today, they would tell you that they are happy to be alive."

soonerpolitics.com has the ad linked on the right side of the home page. soonerpolitics.com proprietor Keith Gaddie had this to say when a Carson push-poll tried to get the same message out in August:

To equate the termination of an ectopic pregnancy with an elective abortion is at best ignorant, at worst politics at its most-mean-spirited and guttural.

So Dr. Tom Coburn did not perform abortions. He terminated two nonviable pregnancies of the sort that constitute a grave threat to the life of the expectant mother.

Here's a link to my entry at that time, and here's a link to soonerpolitics.com August content which includes the above quote.

Carson's radio ad cites the Republican National Committee for Life as if they opposed Tom Coburn or considered him not pro-life. In fact, their political action committee endorsed Coburn in the primary and describes Coburn as "unconditionally pro-life".

Brad Carson is a lying weasel. Even if you are pro-choice, do you really want a lying weasel representing you in the U.S. Senate?

(By the way, if anyone knows the name of the voice talent on the Carson ad, please drop me a line at blog at batesline.com -- replace the "at" with the @ sign. Someone who would prostitute his God-given vocal talents in the service of lies deserves to be named and shamed.)

The Tulsa County Republican Party is sponsoring a showing of the documentary "Stolen Honor" tonight at 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm. Each showing will last an hour -- only 100 seats will be available at each showing, so come early. The documentary is about John Kerry's slanderous testimony before the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, and its impact on the veterans whose honor he besmirched.

The film will be shown at the Circle 2, on Lewis Avenue, between Admiral Blvd and 2nd St. Admission is free; donations to the Tulsa County Republican Party are requested.

By the way, the Circle 2 is the first phase of the restoration of the Circle Cinema, the last pre-1960s theatre still standing in Tulsa. The Circle 2 has already begun showing a schedule of independent and classic films, continuing in the tradition of the Westby Cinema (and the Williams Center Cinema before it).

Whether or not your name is Hamp, if you're a supporter of Tom Coburn, your help is requested to put stamps on a mailing, if you have any time available until midnight tonight and from 9 to midnight tomorrow. This is the perfect political activity for shy persons. This is a task that older children and teenagers can do, too. Report for duty at Creative Printing and Mailing, 7041 East 15th Street -- between Memorial and Sheridan. (For you Tulsa old-timers, that's in Burtek's old facility.)

UPDATE: Even a four-year old can help: Katherine is very proud to say that she put on 101 stamps to "help President Bush."

A childish misunderstanding? No. Sending Tom Coburn to the Senate will help President Bush accomplish his agenda. Voting for liberal Democrat Brad Carson would deliver control of the Senate to the Democrats and hurt the President's ability to pursue his policies.

So go by Creative Printing and stamp mail, go by Coburn HQ at 61st & Memorial to make calls, or go by the GOP's campaign center at 52nd & Harvard (in front of Mardel's) to make calls. No need to call ahead -- just drop in. Let's help the President by turning out the vote for Tom Coburn.

Leadership Tulsa is sponsoring this event. Ken Neal of the Whirled's editorial page will be one of the panelists, which ought to be unintentionally entertaining. It looks like LT has done a good job of acheiving balance -- Forrest Claunch is the leader of the opposition on the gaming issues, and Mike Thornbrugh has been outspoken in opposition to the tobacco tax hike. Here's the press release:

Leadership Tulsa Hosts State Questions Forum on Lottery, Gaming and Tobacco Tax

Leadership Tulsa will host an informational forum focusing on three of the nine state questions scheduled to appear on the November 2 general election ballot � SQ 705/706 on the education lottery, SQ 712 on the State Tribal Gaming Act and SQ 713 on the tobacco tax. The event will be held Tuesday, October 26 from 5:30pm to 7pm at the Tulsa Technology Center Lemley Campus at 35th and Memorial. It is free and open to the public.

Panelists include David Blatt, the Director of Public Policy for the Community Action Project, Mike Thornbrugh of the QuikTrip Corporation, David Stewart of the Cherokee Nation Enterprises, Ken Neal of the Tulsa World, Forrest Claunch of Oklahomans for Good Government and Pat Hall with the educational lottery campaign. Leadership Tulsa member and business consultant, Gary Richetto, will moderate the event.

�We had a tremendous turn out for the gubernatorial forum we hosted a couple of years ago,� explained Isabell Estes, current chair for the Leadership Tulsa board. �This forum, like all our programs, provides information on trends and issues that affect our community in an environment that encourages questions and thoughtful discussion.�

For more information, contact the Leadership Tulsa office at (918) 477-7079. The event is free and open to the public. Reservations are not necessary.

Wendy Thomas
Executive Director
Leadership Tulsa
wendy@leadershiptulsa.org
918-477-7080

Now on the home page, SoonerPolitics.com has links to the latest Wilson Research poll of Oklahoma voters on the presidential and senate races and the most controversial state questions. Coburn is still up by three, but Coburn and Carson each lost a point to voice-hearing Independent Shiela Bilyeu. Follow that link to SoonerPolitics.com to see what Dr. Stones has to say about the poll.

And then follow this link to read Clayton Cramer on what the plus or minus margin of error is all about; and he's got a link to a poll "explainer" on CNN's website that he found helpful. The explainer doesn't mention the 95% confidence level, which means there's a one-in-twenty chance that the Wilson poll is wrong beyond the margin of error.

Coburn needs your help -- Tulsans call 627-5702 to find out what you can do.

On SoonerPolitics.com, OU PoliSci professor Keith Gaddie reviews the Tulsa Whirled's latest poll in the Oklahoma US Senate race (which shows Democrat Brad Carson up by 6%) and calls attention to the poll's lack of any screening for likely voters:

Registered voter surveys always favor Democratic candidates, but they are not reflective of turnout. Consumer Logic has not used any sort of likely voter screen (which have been discussed on this site before), not even a screening question that asks about the certainty with which a respondent will vote. A similar survey, taken more recently by SurveyUSA and using such a screening question, illustrates the problem inherent in the World�s poll: Tom Coburn has a seven-point lead among �certain� voters, while Brad Carson leads among voters who are only �probably� going to vote. And SUSA had weeded out the unlikely voters, who are still included in the World poll of registered voters.

We are in an uncertain political environment with regard to turnout. But, Consumer Logic and the Tulsa media who sponsored this poll owe it to their readers to address these issues, because they do not create an accurate picture of the polling environment, nor do they communicate the greater predictive error inherent in their unscreened, registered voter survey.

Gaddie also comments on the Oklahoman's endorsement of Tom Coburn:

Should Dr. Coburn prevail, his incumbency is impeded by a divisive, negative campaign waged by his opponent and his supporters. His trademark forthrightness and consistency has been called into question. His independence and lack of beholding to other interests are diminished. He will have won in no small part because other conservatives� most notably the NRSC and the Club for Growth, the Oklahoma City GOP organization (most notably Ernest Istook�s people), the GOP congressional delegation, and the Bush family � carried water for his campaign financially, politically, and organizationally at the grassroots. Left to his own devices, Tom Coburn would probably be outspent and losing right now. He is in this race due to an exceptional conservative effort on his behalf.

Senator Tom Coburn, like other politicians, will find he is beholden to the interests and organizations who contributed to his success. And, this will likely lead to demands that he change his political style, as the Oklahoman astutely suggests when its editorial board observes that �If elected, it's imperative that Coburn adopt a spirit of collaboration, particularly with fellow Sen. Jim Inhofe, that sometimes eluded him during his six years in the House.�

To the extent that Coburn is beholden to these groups, it will serve to reinforce his strength of character and independence. The people who have lined up to help Tom Coburn win this election did so because of who he is, not because they believe they could mold him into something different. The reason Club for Growth made his election its number one priority is because he has a record of standing firm on the Club's issues of economic freedom and smaller government. Any supporter who believes he's going to call in some favors once Coburn is in the Senate hasn't bothered to read his book or study his record.

Although his consistency and forthrightness have been questioned, the "questions" against him have been shown to be bogus. There are encouraging signs that Oklahomans are finally seeing through the distortions coming from Brad Carson's campaign. It only helps Coburn that a major donor to Carson's campaign -- the attorney who defended Coburn in that sterilization lawsuit -- is coming forward to challenge the half-truths and outright lies coming from Carson and his supporters. From a recent e-mail from Tom Coburn:

Let me close by mentioning a hero. Walter Haskins is the lawyer who represented me thirteen years ago when I was the defendant in a frivolous lawsuit based on untruthful claims. He does not agree with me politically; in fact, he and his wife contributed the maximum amount allowed by law to Brad Carson's campaign. When he saw me attacked in the media in early September about that very lawsuit, he told Brad Carson the facts that I had done nothing wrong and that the case had been quite properly thrown out of court. But when Mr. Carson went ahead and put a million dollars of his campaign funds behind television advertisements intended to destroy my character with those same false charges, Mr. Haskins stepped forward publicly to tell reporters that the claims in those commercials are false and that Brad Carson knew it. Now Mr. Haskins has made a commercial for us that you will probably be seeing over the next few days. Walt Haskins has come to my defense on his own initiative, at his own expense, and against his own political preferences, because truth matters to him. I am overwhelmed by the courage and integrity of this good man, and I will remember it the rest of my life.

You can see the ad here.

And to help the Coburn campaign in this final week, call them in Tulsa at 294-8352 or call the Tulsa County Republican Party at 627-5702.

I've been meaning for a while to write about the numerous state questions on the ballot in Oklahoma this November. The state election board has the complete text (PDF) that will appear on the ballot.

(You can see a brief analysis of all the state questions by the Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs here on their website.)

Let's warm up with a couple of the simple ones, having to do with property tax.

There are many, many opportunities over the next 10 days to help your favorite candidates connect with the voters. With all due respect to my readers in other parties, my hope is to see the reelection of George W. Bush, the election of Tom Coburn, and the Republican rescue of our State House and Senate from nearly 100 years of continuous misrule by the other party. There's a great opportunity today to help, right here in Tulsa.

This afternoon at 1:00, come to 52nd & Harvard, to the little office building in front of Mardel's. Food will be provided, and you'll be helping to deliver campaign literature supporting all Republican candidates to every Republican house in Tulsa County. The morning shift, which started at 9, is already out on the streets.

Then between now and through election day, there are plenty of opportunities to help, almost 24/7, whenever you can, for as long as you are able, and doing whatever you feel comfortable doing. Call Republican headquarters at 627-5702 and tell them you're reporting for duty.

The new KWTV Wilson Research poll is out, and it shows that the Presidential race in Oklahoma has narrowed from 30 points to 12 in just one week, while in the Senate race, Carson's lead over Coburn remains at 2 points.

18 points is a lot of movement for one week and that got me to dig a little further. There's a question asking what political label the respondent would give to himself -- liberal, moderate, or conservative, and if liberal or conserative, whether very or somewhat. The previous two weeks, the liberal number was at 12%; this week it's at 17%. The previous two weeks, the conservative percentage was 48% then 50%; this week it's 44%. What's more, the very conservative number had been at 23% and 24%, then dropped this week to 18%. (Moderate numbers stayed about the same all three weeks -- 34, 33, 31.)

Either we had a seismic shift in Oklahoma politics, with the whole political spectrum shifting six points to the left, or more likely, this poll is an outlier. When you take a random sample, the results most of the time will be representative of the larger population, within the margin of error, but there's always a chance (about 1 in 20) that you will get unlucky and pick an utterly unrepresentative sample. If that is the case with this week's Wilson poll, and in fact the real presidential numbers are closer to last week's, it makes you wonder what the real Coburn-Carson numbers are, if a liberal-skewed sample has them nearly tied.

The Tulsa Whirled editorial board apparently will do and say anything to make sure that Little Boy Brad Carson is elected to the Senate so that the Senate will be controlled again by the liberal Democrats.

The latest lie is in today's lead editorial:

Carson has received an A-plus rating from Americans For Better Immigration, a strong immigration watchdog lobby....

Coburn, on the other hand, voted against or worked against measures that would have made it harder to hire illegal immigrants. He received a D-plus rating from Americans for Better Immigration.

So I visited the website of Americans for Better Immigration (ABI) to see who this group is. Just because the Whirled says this group is a strong immigration watchdog lobby doesn't mean that's necessarily so.

I was surprised to see that they were completely wrong about the ratings Coburn and Carson received. While it's technically true that Carson received "an A+" and Coburn received "a D+" among the nine individual category grades, the editorial creates the impression that those are the candidates' overall scores. In fact, they both got B+ overall. The ABI gave Democrat Brad Carson a B+ overall, with an F- in one category for his support for amnesty for illegal aliens. The ABI also gave Republican Tom Coburn a career B+, including an A+ for opposing amnesty. You can visit each page and there's a link for more details about what each one supported and opposed. Both Carson and Coburn received six A+s in various categories.

ABI appears to oppose all immigration, including the immigration of the sort of bright, skilled, and energetic people that have helped fuel our nation's high tech sector. That's an area where Tom Coburn disagrees with the ABI, and I think Coburn is right. I know that our company has benefited from the expertise and innovation of highly-talented foreign-born engineers.

But the main thing to notice is that the Whirledlings took a press release from Brad Carson's campaign and ran it as their editorial opinion without doing their own factchecking. This appears to be a common practice for them -- at least one of the editorial writers has won an award from an organization for doing nothing more than rewriting their press releases into editorials.

UPDATE: Charles G. Hill has read the editorial and expresses his amazement.

It's interesting to see a familiar political race through someone else's eyes. Dawn Summers takes a commendable interest in politics beyond the Hudson. She watched Sunday's "Meet the Press" debate between Tom Coburn and Little Boy Brad Carson and has a few interesting observations (hat tip to Karol for alerting me to this):

This weekend I watched Tim Russert moderate a debate between the Senate candidates from Oklahoma. Evidently, farming and roads are all the rage. Interestingly enough, the Democrat wanted to let viewers know that he supported the the Patriot Act, the prescription drug bill and the President's tax cuts.

While the Republican criticized the prescription drug bill because it would provide benefits to the wealthiest members of society who didn't need it, remained concerned about the Patriot Act because he didn't like sacrificing liberty for security and regarded the ballooning budget deficit as no less than stealing from our grandchildren.

Huh.

So, in Oklahoma, Republicans are called Democrats -- sort of middle-America's "le Big Mac," as it were.

Well, not exactly. In Little Boy Brad, you've got a liberal Democrat who knows he must pretend to be a conservative if he's going to get elected in this very conservative state. He's going as far as he can to distance himself from the Democratic ticket without technically lying about his stands on the issues.

In Dr. Coburn you've got a conservative who supports the Patriot Act but shares conservative and libertarian concerns about potential abuses, a conservative who supports government help for those who need it, but opposes fiscal irresponsibility for the burden it places on generations to come. That position, during his six years in Congress, sometimes put him at odds with Republican appropriators, who wanted to continue the time honored Democrat practice of trying to bribe the voters with their own tax dollars. Before he decided to run for Senate, Coburn wrote a no-holds-barred book about the budget battles of the last half of the 1990s, and how congressional careerism works against fiscal restraint.

Dawn continues:

Just got a push-poll from the Carson campaign -- officially it was from "WC Research" and the guy claimed to be calling from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, but caller ID showed all zeroes. The two push-poll claims, which were only read if you said you were a Coburn voter and might possibly change your mind, were that Tom Coburn voted to cut Meals on Wheels and voted to cut pay for the military and to cut veterans benefits. I asked for the roll call numbers for these despicable votes, and the guy claimed to have no idea what I was talking about. I asked him if he was a Christian, and he said no. Then I asked him if he had a conscience, and told him if his superiors couldn't give him the date and roll call numbers of those votes, then they were asking him to lie and slander. He said he was only doing what he was told. I said that's what the Germans in Nazi Germany said -- we were just following orders.

I saw Brad Carson on "Meet the Press" this morning. Tim Russert called him on several of the outlandish lies and half-truths that he has been telling about Tom Coburn. Little Boy Brad just brazened it out, demonstrating a Clintonian ability to persist shamelessly in a lie. Carson even tried to peddle the old lie that Coburn called the people of Oklahoma City "crapheads". (Coburn called the legislative leadership "crapheads" for policies that hurt Oklahoma businesses. He referred to Oklahoma City as you might refer to Washington, as a figure of speech for the government in that place. Carson, who claims to be an intelligent little boy, willfully chooses to misunderstand.)

Whether it's the Cockroach Caucus here in Tulsa, or the likes of Brad Carson, these liars smear dedicated public servants, using their echo chamber in publications like the Tulsa Whirled, which has its own hidden agenda.

The only way to stop it is to make sure they lose.

I've heard some complaints from people who have called an office of the Coburn for Senate campaign to volunteer, and instead of being plugged in immediately with something to do, they either found the office closed, left a message and never got a return call, or were told there wasn't anything for them to do.

If that was ever the case, it is no longer.

The Coburn campaign needs your help over the next week and a half on the phones. Specifically:

Tonight and for the next 7 days at Coburn's Tulsa HQ in Eton Square (8321 E. 61st, between Jason's Deli and Atlantic Sea Grill), from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. to make phone calls to voters. You'll be told who to call and what to say, so it's easy. You'll be getting an inside look at the campaign and how Oklahoma voters are responding to it. Most of all you'll be helping elect a great man who will be a leader and an agent of positive change in the U. S. Senate.

RSVP to the Coburn office by phone at 294-8352.

Having been a candidate, I know how hard it can be to organize and make the best use of people who volunteer for the campaign, so that the campaign gets the most benefit for their efforts and the volunteers have a satisfying experience and a desire to do even more. In my 2002 City Council race, Jerry Riley was my campaign manager, and he did a great job of volunteer coordination -- in fact, I met someone Wednesday night, someone I had never met in person, but who had volunteered for my campaign, who told me how impressed he was with Jerry's professionalism and organization. Terri Cleveland and Susan Hill are another couple of experienced campaign managers here in Tulsa who do a great job of lining up volunteers and putting them to work, allowing the candidates to focus on meeting the voters. This aspect of the campaign is often overlooked by campaign consultants focused on mailers and ad buys, but it's often the difference between victory and defeat.

The third week results of the Wilson Research Strategies / KWTV poll are online here. Key results:

• Bush gains 5%, Kerry drops 5% -- now a 64% - 24% race
• In the Senate race, Sheila Bilyeu drops from 6% to 2%, which probably reflects the fact that she was in the news this week. Undecided drops from 19 to 17. Coburn is up 3% from last week, Carson up 2%. The race is now at 40% for Coburn, 41% for Carson. Margin of error is +/- 4.4%.

A quick glance at the internals shows Carson leading or tied in every congressional district except District 1. More analysis later.

All documented at bradcarsonisaliberal.com. The site's mission statement:

This website is dedicated to outlining Brad�s real record in Congress. So while Brad may run as fast and furious as he can to the right, hoping the dust he leaves behind will cover over his liberal past, this website will clear the air so you, the voters, know Brad�s real record, rather than his rhetoric.

Hat tip to former Tulsan Adam Doverspike, who runs the excellent unofficial blog covering Tom Coburn's campaign for Senate and contributes to group political blog redstate.org.

A few more notes, scribbled on paper (got tired of writing on my PDA):

On the UN -- Dodd said the US should pay its dues.

Sullivan said that the UN is nothing more than a debating society. The UN passed plenty of resolutions dealing with Saddam Hussein but never enforced them. The US should withhold its dues. Sullivan pointed to the oil-for-food scandal -- money intended for humanitarian relief was skimmed off the top to build palaces for Saddam. Sullivan mentioned seeing a report that someone connected with the UN was burning documents dealing with Saddam's WMD program.

On gun control -- Dodd said he got 100% on the NRA questionnaire. He said we don't need new laws but need to enforce laws on the books, although he went on to ridicule the expiration of the assault weapon ban, which suggests he would favor a new federal law to reinstate the ban.

Closing statements -- Dodd advised voters: "Vote your own interests. Look out for you." (So much for "ask not what your country can do for you.")

This is necessarily sketchy -- hard to listen and compose at the same time, but I thought you'd enjoy seeing the notes as I took them tonight. Overall impressions:

• The new Jewish Community Center is a beautiful facility.
• The crowd was rather small -- maybe 150 -- and mostly partisans for one candidate or the other. One observer thought that there were only a handful of audience members who were there as members of the Jewish community, but he expected much more interest in the Senate forum coming up in a few weeks.
• John Sullivan's debating skills have improved markedly since his first race for Congress. He spoke with confidence and passion. The passion was particularly in evidence in his discussion of American policy towards Israel, which reflects his voting record.
• Doug Dodd was his usual polished broadcast-professional self, for the most part, although he seemed unusually incoherent and inarticulate at a few points, particularly in discussing the Jewish people and the issue of abortion. On abortion, he at first said the the government shouldn't interfere in the decision, but then he hinted that there was nothing that could be done anyway with Roe v. Wade in effect, so no point in Congress debating it except to pass a constitutional amendment. There was something too about revisiting the definition of viability based on scientific advances.
• Dodd was more open in his embrace of left-wing ideas -- opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion, opposing the defense of marriage against activist judges, treating Israel's elected government and Palestinian terrorists as morally equivalent (the code phrase for this is "being an honest broker"). His use of the phrase "our so-called coalition partners," referring to our allies in the Iraq war, speaks volumes about his view of foreign policy. I guess Britain and Spain and Poland don't count to Doug Dodd -- only the opinions of France and Germany matter.

In the words of Kris Kristofferson, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." Having already lost twice to John Sullivan, and with the national Democratic committees unwilling to put money into his race, Doug Dodd no longer feels compelled to campaign as a centrist, as he did in his first two races. He's letting his colors fly.

Raw notes:

This is turning into the Doug Dodd show: Given a chance to ask one question of Congressman Sullivan, Dodd went on to ask two follow-ups without any objection from the moderator. Sullivan handled it well, did a fine job defending Medical Savings Accounts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Dodd on Israel: "part of our book is the book that Judaism uses" - unusually inarticulate. No reference to or condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.

Sullivan points to a record of support in Congress for Israel. The US shouldn't tell Israel what to do in peace negotiations. Until Arafat is dead nothing is going to happen. He's a thug and a terrorist. The Palestinian leaders don't want peace. They were given 95% of what they wanted and rejected it.

Social issues:

Dodd: "I am pro-choice." Would have voted against a ban of partial-birth abortion. "My church tells me" that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that should not affect the state's view of marriage. Opposes marriage amendment, both state and federal.

Sullivan: Prolife - life begins at conception. Supported ban on partial birth abortion. Supports federal marriage amendment.

Dodd accuses Sullivan of not listening and not quoting him accurately. Dodd gives mixed messages on Roe v. Wade - stuck with it - no point in discussing it short of a constitutional amendment, could adjust trimester in light of scientific advances in viability.

Dodd said if there were no charitable deduction, there'd be no incentive for giving.

Sullivan: Every taxpayer deserves tax relief. Tax relief is driving the GDP.

It's the 1st Congressional District debate between incumbent John Sullivan & three-time challenger Democrat Doug Dodd.

In opening statements, Sullivan emphasized his role in obtaining early funding for advanced airport security equipment and for increasing the depth of the McClellan-Kerr Navigation Channel, which connects Tulsa's port to the Mississippi.

Dodd appears to be trying to tag Sullivan with Tulsa's job losses.

First question: What can we learn from Israel about dealing with terrorism? Sullivan answered the question, Dodd used the question to launch into the Israeli-Palestinian situation, stating that in recent years
America hasn't been an "honest broker."

Dodd on Iraq -- It's a mess. Don't have enough international support. Slighting reference to our "so called coalition partners."

Sullivan focused on Saddam's mass graves and use of WMDs on his own people, and the progress made -- schools open, free elections on the way. A free and stable Iraq is good for the Middle East and good for the United States.

Dodd referred to our troops in Iraq as occupiers, not liberators.

More to come....

Many political observers were surprised at Shiela Bilyeu's filing for the Oklahoma U. S. Senate being vacated by Sen. Don Nickles. Ms. Bilyeu gave a home address in Virginia, which would seem to make her ineligible to run for the office -- even Hillary Clinton and Alan Keyes bothered to get an address in their new home states before filing for office. But no one challenged her candidacy, so she is on the ballot as an Independent. She has consistently attracted around 5 or 6 percent in the polls, apparently as a placeholder for the "None of the Above" voter.

In the process of writing that previous entry, I came across her name at the top of a list of former candidates for the Green Party nomination for president. Here's what Politics1 has to say about Shiela:

Sheila Bilyeu was one of only two candidates who qualified for the Statehood-Green Party Presidential primary ballot in the District of Columbia. However, it appears she is only running as a "favorite son" candidate. In the DC primary, she lost of David Cobb by a 2-1 margin. Bilyeu was previously a 1986 candidate in the Democratic primary for Texas Governor against incumbent Mark White (but she captured only 4% of the vote). Bilyeu's 2004 candidacy was limited only to the DC contest. She placed 11th (last place) at the Green convention with 2 delegates on the first ballot.

Oklahoma blogger Awe Contraire considered supporting Sheila, but learned a bit more about her:

Well, sure glad I held off recommending independent Sheila Bilyeu for Senate. I was reflexively turning to her because, basically, she is not Coburn, who is a rabid neo-con, or Carson, who is a DINO (Democrat in name only), and is against the war in Iraq and thinks we need better funding for human services. Unfortunately, she also thinks she has a radio in her head implanted by the feds who send her derogatory messages via satellite.

Bilyeu herself replies in the comments:

Before you write me off you should search for the truth and if you did you would find that I do have a radio type device in my head. An xray could confirm it for you. If I was crazy there are plenty of people who would have been glad to put me away. JUST PLEASE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND CARE ABOUT JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANKS.

It's not every candidate who offers to have her head examined.

Here's a link to the Oklahoman article that Awe Contraire links to -- free registration required.

The latest poll numbers from Wilson Research in the Oklahoma U.S. Senate race shows conservative Republican Tom Coburn 2 points behind liberal Democrat Brad Carson. It appears that Carson's ad campaign trying to redefine himself as a conservative has had some impact. All the cross-tabs are available in this PDF file.

The overall numbers: Coburn at 37%, Carson at 39%, Bilyeu at 6%, and 19% undecided. Margin of error is +/- 4.4%. From last week, that's a 5% drop for Coburn, a 3% gain for Carson, a 2% gain for Undecided, and a 1% gain for Bilyeu.

Some interesting internals:

• The more educated, the more likely to support Coburn -- Coburn leads 45-36 among those with a post-graduate education, 43-34 among college graduates, 39-37 among those with some college, but trails 28-45 among those with a high school graduation or less.

• Coburn only leads 49-26 among self-described conservatives.

• Coburn only leads 55-24 among Bush supporters, 56-23 among Republicans.

• Coburn leads in four of the five congressional districts -- the exception is CD 2, where he trails 25-58.

• Coburn leads in only one age group -- 25-34, where he leads 55-27.

• Marriage amendment supporters are almost evenly split, favoring Coburn 42-38.

The poll also covers the presidential race (Bush leads 59-29) and five of the state questions.

UPDATE: Charles of Dustbury teases a few more interesting details from the data.

Keith Gaddie of soonerpolitics.com is shedding light on a deceptive push-poll designed to alienate pro-life supporters of Dr. Tom Coburn:

The newest dirty campaign in Oklahoma is the person or persons who are calling around the state, performing a push-poll and asking the respondents if they would vote for Dr. Tom Coburn if they knew he had performed abortions. There are two reprehensible acts here, and I intend to lay both to rest right here and now. The first is the portrayal of Tom Coburn as an abortionist. The second is the use of the push-polling technique.

First, with regard to Dr. Tom Coburn and abortions: Tom Coburn freely admits that, on two occasions, he terminated pregnancies in order to save the life of the mother. He also stated in a debate last month that, definitely, if he had to end a pregnancy to save the life of a mother, he would do so.

Let us talk about the pregnancies Tom Coburn terminated. As I understand it from people who should know (people who spoke to Coburn about this matter), both of the pregnancies he terminated were what are called ectopic pregnancies....

This type of pregnancy is non-viable. In other words, there is no chance of the safe and normal development of the baby, no prospect for carrying an ectopic pregnancy to term and delivering a baby....

To equate the termination of an ectopic pregnancy with an elective abortion is at best ignorant, at worst politics at its most-mean-spirited and guttural.

So Dr. Tom Coburn did not perform abortions. He terminated two nonviable pregnancies of the sort that constitute a grave threat to the life of the expectant mother.

Second, about push-polling: A push-poll is a telephone campaigning technique disguised as an opinion poll. Push polls are used to spread disinformation about candidates by couching questions into a context, such as asking the question �would you vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?� Whether or not there is any basis in fact for the assertion is secondary to the effect of spreading the disinformation. Bush political guru Karl Rove has been termed �the Prince of Push Polls� for his effective use of this questionable campaign technique.

soonerpolitics.com has more details, with links, about both ectopic pregnancy and push-polling. Right now the item is at the top of the page, but be aware that it will move down the page in days to come.

State Rep. Wayne Pettigrew surprised a lot of people when he dropped out of a runoff in his race for re-election. Marian Cooksey, formerly an aide to Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin, finished less than 100 votes behind the incumbent, taking 44% to his 46% with the balance going to a third candidate. Pettigrew had frustrated leaders in his own caucus in recent years, splitting from most other Republicans with his support for the expansion of gambling. He also stirred up controversy with his support for flying the battle flag of a Confederate Cherokee regiment to replace the Confederate flag as one of Oklahoma's 14 flags on display at the State Capitol, with his attempt to regulate tribal membership, and his push to raise fuel taxes.

I'm writing all this just to give me an excuse to quote the following from the Whirled's story, which made me laugh out loud.

In stepping down, Pettigrew cited the demands of his growing business and his family, and the "sinister" campaign waged by his opponent, or at least by his opponent's supporters:

The lawmaker said Cooksey may not have known everything door-knocking backers were telling constituents, but criticized her for aligning with those "violently opposed" to him.

"When you go to bed with those people, you get their crabs," Pettigrew said at a state Capitol news conference.

Most people would have gone for the "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" metaphor, but evidently Mr. Pettigrew's mind runs in different circles.

UPDATE 8/15/2005: Welcome, Buzzflash readers. This blog is mainly about local politics in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Particularly if you're from this neck of the woods, I invite you to visit the home page for the latest entries. To learn more about the author of this blog, read the profile published last month by our local alternative weekly paper, Urban Tulsa Weekly.

A friend who supported Kirk Humphreys expressed disappointment in a couple of things I wrote in my election night report. He felt I was suggesting that Kirk Humphreys's supporters (including him) were only backing him out of a desire not to miss the bandwagon, and he took great exception to my use of the phrase "purveyor of filth laid low" in my description of the reaction of supporters at Coburn's watch party to the surprisingly low numbers posted by Humphreys. He felt that the comment showed bad judgment and that it was beneath me to write so about a godly man who had a lot of supporters.

Regarding the bandwagon comment: Certainly there were many people who truly believed that Kirk Humphreys was the best man for the job. But there's no question that a bandwagon effect was in force, and although there was a long way to go until the primary, a lot of political folks seemed to feel a lot of pressure to get on board. When Coburn entered the race, I'm sure a lot of Humphreys' backers continued to believe Humphreys was the best man for the job, but others who had committed publicly to Humphreys felt regrets for their early commitment, but stuck with it nevertheless. I'm sure that a lot more Humphreys supporters felt regrets over the last week -- Ron Howell even said as much on KFAQ Monday morning.

As to the "purveyor of filth" comment, the ads from the Humphreys campaign over the last week were filth. They were a distortion of Tom Coburn's record by taking votes out of context -- the sort of dirty pool I expect from Democrats, as when they attack a Republican for voting against a bill falsely labeled with the term "civil rights". It's one thing to say, as Humphreys had been doing throughout the campaign, that Tom Coburn doesn't play the Washington game and doesn't bring home the bacon to Oklahoma. That's a fair criticism, although it didn't appear to resonate with the voters. It's another thing to say, as Humphreys' ads did, that "we can't trust Tom Coburn in time of war." And as we were reminded at the beginning or end of each commercial, Kirk Humphreys approved each one of those ads.

Then there's the push poll that attempted to paint Coburn as a hypocrite on the abortion issue, because he twice performed surgery to save the life of pregnant women, resulting unavoidably in the death of the unborn children. Suggesting that somehow that makes Coburn an abortionist is filth.

There were plenty of comments at the Coburn watch party expressing some pleasure that Humphreys' attacks backfired on him so strongly, although the sentiment was far outweighed by pride at the resounding vote of confidence in their man. And so I wrote what I did.

Through the campaign, I resisted any urge to trash Humphreys (or Anthony or Murphy, even). When I learned about kirkisajerk.com, I considered mentioning it in the blog, with appropriate disclaimers, simply because it was out there and, as a new phenomenon, of interest to people who follow Oklahoma politics, but in the end I decided I didn't want to be associated with the site in any way. I did write about my disagreement with Humphreys on the Bass Pro Shops subsidy, but that was as negative as I got, until last weekend, when I had had my fill of Humphreys' attack ads. Until last week, I felt I could support Humphreys wholeheartedly if he won the nomination, and I said so.

Like you I had the impression that Kirk Humphreys is a godly man, and I was impressed with his personal involvement in missions and his support of the Billy Graham crusade. I don't know the man's heart; I can only gauge his character by his actions. None of us will achieve perfection in this life, and we progress in sanctification at different rates and in different phases. Whatever part of his character told him it was OK to launch last week's attacks in order to prevent an outright Coburn win is a part that obviously needs further refining. An apology for those ads would be a good start (and it might blunt any effort by Carson to use the same attacks). I can't accept the notion that he is not ultimately responsible for the ads. If he caved in to pressure from his advisers to run the ads, it doesn't speak well for the strength of his backbone.

Two years ago, I watched the same team of consultants, in support of former Humphreys aide Jeff Cloud's candidacy for Corporation Commissioner, trash the reputation of Dana Murphy, in order to stop her from winning the primary outright, and then to defeat her in the runoff. Dana is one of the most Christ-like people I have ever encountered in politics, not to mention the most qualified candidate for the job, and they savaged her for the sake of winning, for the sake of ensuring that every statewide elected Republican official was one of "their people". Humphreys was close enough to that race -- he endorsed Cloud -- and engaged enough in Oklahoma politics that he should have anticipated pressure to slam Coburn unfairly and should have been ready to resist it.

Politics does indeed happen, and it can get nasty. As a card-carrying Calvinist I believe in the reality and persistence of the sin nature. Politics were bound to get nasty in the Republican party, notwithstanding the strong Christian element present, because we're all human and subject to pride, envy, sloth, lechery, gluttony, and the other two deadly sins I can't remember right now. Still, I had hoped we wouldn't have the depth of nastiness we saw from the Humphreys campaign these last two weeks, from Wortman's campaign, and two years ago in many of the statewide primaries. It is a shame, a blight on the party.

To all the disappointed Humphreys supporters: You have my sympathy. I know how bad it hurts to lose, and it's bound to hurt worse with your candidate finishing the way he did. I appreciate Kirk Humphreys making an endorsement first thing this morning, and I hope you will follow his lead and help Tom Coburn defeat Brad "Son of Synar" Carson in November.

Wow! No one predicted such a big win, but there it is -- 61% for Tom Coburn and clear sailing into the general election. I'll look forward to seeing the county-by-county breakdown. The heavily Republican midtown precincts I checked tonight -- including four within walking distance of Humphreys' Tulsa HQ -- gave Coburn three times as many votes as Humphreys.

I stopped by the Coburn watch party, just missing the candidate as he headed off to Muskogee to finish the evening. The mood among Coburn supporters was one of pride in such a big win, but with an undercurrent of satisfaction to see the purveyor of filth brought low.

There was a lot of amused comment when Humphreys praised Coburn in his concession speech -- tonight he says Tom Coburn is a good man, 24 hours ago he said we can't trust Tom Coburn. Humphreys is through, politically, not because of how badly he lost, but because of his decision to distort Tom Coburn's record in order to win. As I said Monday morning on KFAQ, Humphreys not only shot himself in the foot, he blew his foot clean off.

There's a lesson here about not jumping on the bandwagon. The reason so many Republican politicians endorsed Kirk Humphreys so early in the campaign was fear of being the last to join the Humphreys team. If he's going to be the Senator, you want to be able to remind him that you were with him from the beginning. But inevitability isn't what it's cracked up to be, and the people who held off on endorsements until the full field of candidates was in place are looking foresighted right now. It would be nice if the lesson would take hold and persist through the 2006 governor's race and the 2008 presidential primaries.

It was interesting to see in the SurveyUSA poll that Coburn did nearly as well among voters who describe themselves as "pro-choice" as voters who take the label of pro-life. Coburn is known for his principled stance on social issues, but clearly his principled stance on fiscal policy has won him admirers who disagree with him on other points.

I was amazed at Mike Mazzei's strong win in Senate 25. I really had the impression that Loudermilk, Gorman, and Hastings had all run strong races as well -- they were impressive in the candidate forums I attended. Mazzei began knocking on doors in his district about a year ago, with the aim of reaching every Republican household twice before the primary. Those who spent time in the south Tulsa neighborhoods in that district were not surprised -- you saw Mazzei signs in yards, everyone else's signs on the right of way.

Dan Sullivan had a very strong showing in House 71, although a 100 votes shy of an outright win. There's some talk that Misti Rice, who finished a distant second, may follow Cathy Keating's classy example and step aside to prevent a runoff, giving Dan a running start at Democratic incumbent Roy McClain.

Very happy to see John Wright returned to office and Sue Tibbs with a big primary victory. They're both solid and articulate conservatives and we need them as leaders as the House transitions to Republican leadership.

I was pleased to see David Schaffer's solid win in House 78. I've gotten to know David over the last few months, and he will make a great legislator. He's a solid social and fiscal conservative, with some ideas for making Oklahoma a better place to do business. He'll be up against Jeannie McDaniel, a close associate of former Mayor Susan Savage, and still on the City of Tulsa payroll in the Public Works department. Jeannie served up Jeff Platter on a platter. Platter had a clever slogan ("let a Platter serve you"), but it was impossible to read on his eyewatering yard signs. This district is evenly split in terms of voter registration, so this will be a closely-watched race.

Belated note to Tim Gilpin -- consultants say a mustache loses you about 6% of the vote. (A beard only costs you 4%.) That's about the margin of victory for Tom Adelson. My gut tells me that Gilpin did better in the blue collar part of the district, while Adelson prevailed in the blue-blood precincts. It will be interesting to see if the results validate the gut feeling. The result is probably a disappointment for Dewey Bartlett, who probably would have picked up a lot of Adelson's support had he lost. Still, Dewey won big and he's got a great shot at winning in November. Nancy Rothman seems to have spent a lot of money on yardsigns at the last minute. I wonder how many candidates get into the race thinking all they need to do is show up at candidate forums and put out yard signs.

I could write more, but I'm tired.

SurveyUSA released its final tracking poll for the GOP Senate race, and it's pretty surprising. Dr. Stones has commentary.

After the dust settles, I want to look deeper at all this talk about the "GOP establishment". But here's a taste: The GOP "establishment" isn't in control of the official GOP machinery. The state chairman and vice chairman are independent of this establishment, and the same is true of the Tulsa County elected party leadership. So that should send us on a hunt for some center of power beyond the visible and obvious.

The only poll that matters is happening now. Go vote.

On our visit to Miami (My-am-uhhh, that is) back in June to see HMS Pinafore at the Coleman Theatre Beautiful, it was fun to see campaign signs out for Gerald Dyer, a candidate for the Republican nomination for State Senate District 1. Mr. Dyer was pastor of our church when my family moved to the Tulsa area in 1969, and it was he who baptized me in 1972. He went on to serve as a pastor in Baxter Springs, Kansas, and Miami, and then as the head of the area's association of Southern Baptist churches.

As you will see on his website, he is a solid conservative who knows, and is known by his district. He'll be a great state senator, and if you live up in the northeast corner of our state, I hope you'll give him your vote on Tuesday.

One of Kirk Humphreys' many underhanded attacks on Tom Coburn is that Coburn is a hypocrite on campaign finance reform because he took money from the Club for Growth, which also ran ads in support of Coburn. Either Humphreys doesn't have the intellectual powers to draw careful distinctions or else he's deliberately distorting the truth in hopes of stopping Coburn from winning an outright majority on Tuesday.

Club for Growth is not a PAC that was started to promote the interests of a certain industry or labor union or foreign country. Club for Growth has this to say about itself:

Our members help elect candidates who support the Reagan vision of economic growth through limited government and lower taxes.

Here's how the Club works for you to make your political contributions count:

1. Join now -- it's free!

2. Get our MEMBERS ONLY recommendations on the best candidates in the most important House and Senate races in the country.

3. Contribute to the candidates you like best through the Club for Growth -- and 100% of the money goes to the candidate's campaign. You can contribute to several candidates online or off without having to go to the mailbox, find addresses for candidates, or write multiple checks.

4. Your contribution is combined with thousands of other Club members for maximum impact!

In other words, they find principled candidates committed to sound fiscal policy, endorse them, then encourage their members to donate to their campaigns. Club for Growth has encouraged challengers to Republican office-holders who truly are RINOs (Republicans in name only) when it comes to federal spending and tax policy. Tom Coburn should be proud to have the support and recognition of Club for Growth.

And Kirk Humphreys should be ashamed of trying to paint such a distorted picture of Tom Coburn. He knows better. Someone suggested he was a good man receiving some bad advice, which suggests that he's easily manipulated by the unscrupulous and too weak to control his own campaign. I don't have a problem with negative campaigning that paints an honest picture. I object to campaign ads which take the facts out of context.

I guess it was easy to promise a positive campaign when he felt sure he was going to win. If Kirk Humphreys had been willing to lose gracefully, he would have had a future in Oklahoma politics, maybe as a candidate for governor, maybe as a congressman or even a senator. Not now. He's dead politically. What a shame.

Dr. Stones the psephologist (aka Keith Gaddie) has reliable word that former OKC Mayor Kirk Humphreys is losing ground in his home turf -- the heavy GOP precincts in northern OKC and Edmond. Surveys of likely voters show Humphreys at 37%, Coburn at 35% and Anthony at 8% with 20% undecided. The same poll by the same group in the same precincts had Humphreys at 53% three weeks ago.

The good doctor concludes:

In the end, the problem for Kirk Humphreys may be that, while he was a great mayor and is considered by the people I speak with to be a great guy, he is not coming across to Oklahoma Republicans as the type of senator they want to have in Washington.

As I wrote before, Republican voters may like Humphreys, but they admire Tom Coburn. And I think there is something of the wheeler-dealer in his visage and voice that may, at a subconscious level, make the land deal issues raised by Anthony seem credible. He can't help the way he looks and sounds, but it's just the way he comes across.

By the way I misspelled Kirk Humphreys' last name in an earlier post. My apologies to both Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Humphries. And the other Mr. Humphries, too.

I really shouldn't point out when the opposition is making big mistakes, but I will anyway. Tom Adelson, Brad Henry's Secretary of Health, and a Democrat candidate for Senate District 33, seems like a thoughtful guy, even if he is to the left of most Oklahomans. He has some lovely glossy campaign brochures. But it's been interesting to watch his well-financed campaign mess up a couple of fundamentals.

The first was the yard signs. The most important thing on a yard sign is the candidate's last name. You want to emblazon it in the visual memory of every voter, so he'll remember it when he goes to vote. Tom Adelson's signs are elegant, green and gold on white (two colors is pricey), with a capital dome dominating the sign. But his last name is tiny, especially on the standard sized yard signs. You could be forgiven for thinking that these signs were advertising yet another roofing company.

The second slip is the campaign's contact list of likely primary voters. We've received two calls from the campaign asking for our support. Not only do we not have any Democrats in our house, we don't even live in Senate District 33. Our phone number has been ours for over 10 years, so it's unlikely they called us thinking they were reaching a Democrat in the district who recently had that number. As people move (often without re-registering at the new address) and change phone numbers, a certain amount of errors are to be expected, but I can't think how this one would have been made unless something was really messed up, which could mean that a lot of Adelson's huge pot of money has been spent getting his message to people who can't vote for him.

The Wilson Research poll commissioned by Congressman Ernest Istook is out, and it confirms what many have thought -- Tom Coburn is the Republican Party's best shot at holding the Senate seat being vacated by Don Nickles. The poll has Coburn in a statistical dead heat with Brad Carson, while in head-to-head matchups Carson beats Bob Anthony and Kirk Humphreys handily. The three Republicans all do about equally as well in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th congressional districts, but it's in the 1st and 2nd districts that Coburn outclasses the other two. OU Professor Keith Gaddie notes in his analysis:

Dr. Coburn runs slightly stronger than the other Republicans. His major impact, though, is in weakening the core support for Rep. Carson. The net effect is a nine-point improvement over the Anthony/Humphreys matchups against the likely Democratic nominee. ...

The Coburn candidacy has the peculiar effect of both emboldening base Republicans while also competing for swing voters. This is intriguing, given the strong preference for Coburn first among conservatives.

All over northeastern Oklahoma there are people who were helped in some way by Tom Coburn or his staff during his six years in Congress. A lot of those people are Democrats. My grandfather, a lifelong Democrat, was appointed by Coburn to a veterans advisory committee, and he became one of Coburn's supporters. Voters that would be a slam dunk for Carson against Humphreys or Anthony will have to at least think about their choice if Coburn is on the ballot.

Add to that the fact that conservative Republicans are excited about the chance to send Coburn back to Washington. They may like Humphreys and Anthony, but they admire Tom Coburn. Many Tulsa area Republicans have followed his career, and the constant criticism he endured from the Tulsa Whirled, but they will get their first chance to vote for him this month.

Congressman Istook promised to make the results public, and he has. You can read the questions, see the summary results, and the crosstabs, which break down the sample and compare answers from different questions -- it's all on soonerpolitics.com. Plenty to pore over. Thanks to Congressman Istook, Wilson Research, and Professor Gaddie for this important contribution to the Republican decision-making process.

I received an e-mail about one of the two new Republican bulletin boards that has sprung up in recent days. I don't have much use for forums where people post under pseudonyms, particularly when politics is the topic. There's an old Internet proverb: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Is that message really from a Smith campaign insider? Is that Smith himself posting this nonsense, or is it an opponent's supporter posting under his name? These message boards provide an opportunity to spread disinformation, to trash reputations, to try to squelch the morale of your opponents' supporters. And by opponents I mean primary opponents. These boards tend to be circular firing squads. At best, there is some entertainment value in all the trash talk, but mostly I find it a depressing glimpse at the nastier aspects of politics. Having peeked in on a couple of the Oklahoma Democrat message boards, I was not pleased to learn of plans to set up similar boards for Republicans. I appreciated the good intentions of those who set them up, but I saw nothing good coming of it, and while the Republican boards don't seem to be as vicious yet as the Democrat boards, I see some disturbing trends, and the primary is still a month away.

But the first message linked in this e-mail I received was to a well-written and thought-provoking essay by Paul Hollrah contrasting President Reagan's funeral with that of another political figure a couple of years ago. Here's how it starts:

Michael Reagan, the late president�s oldest son, stepped to the podium, retrieved a folded page from his breast pocket, and after a few obligatory remarks in which he described the deep love and affection he felt for his departed father, he launched into a vicious attack on those in the Democratic Party and the liberal media who�d made his father�s life a living hell during his days in the Oval Office.

Not the way you remember the event? To say much more would give the plot away -- just go read it.

Paul Hollrah has been a Republican Party official in Mayes County (may still be) and has run for the legislature. Interesting that the best thing on a message board dominated by pseudonymity is something written under a real person's real name.

"Parachuting" is a political manuever in which a candidate moves into a district just in time to be eligible file for office in that district. This technique involves removing a potential candidate from a district where he doesn't stand a chance into a district where his party lacks a viable candidate. There seems to be an emerging pattern involving parachuting and the children of wealthy Democrat trial lawyers.

Mitchell Garrett (actually David Mitchell Garrett Jr), son of wealthy Democrat trial lawyer David Garrett has been parachuted into House District 23 to run against State Rep. Sue Tibbs. Tibbs came within 120 votes beating incumbent and beloved TV personality Betty Boyd in 1998, beat Boyd in 2000, and then drew no opponent two years ago.

Junior Garrett registered to vote in Muskogee County on December 6, 1996 (age 25), and was still registered to vote at his dad's address in Muskogee (2601 W Broadway St) as recently as March 2004, even though he had also registered to vote in Tulsa County on October 24, 2003. He has not, to date, attempted to vote in both counties.

David M Garrett Sr's attorney in his felony sexual battery case is Clark Brewster, whose daughter Cassie Mae Brewster was parachuted into House District 77 in 2000 for an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Mark Liotta, a Republican who has built a strong personal rapport with voters in his majority-Democrat northeast Tulsa seat. In September 1999, she was registered to vote at 1316 S Jamestown Ave in House District 78. Sometime between then and April 2000, she registered at an apartment in the district at 8024 E 4th Pl, and then later that year at 449 S Allegheny. I'm told she moved out of the district shortly after losing the election, although she didn't move her registration for a couple of years.

Another recent example of parachuting is Brad Carson. He registered to vote in Rogers County, in the 2nd District, on January 7, 1999, and began his run to replace Tom Coburn later that same year. Prior to that he was registered to vote at 3042 S. Detroit Ave, Tulsa, in Tulsa County, where he registered on August 12, 1994. In May of 1998, there were in addition to Carson two Republican men registered to vote at the same address, possibly housemates, possibly previous renters who never bothered to change their registration after moving. I am not aware of any evidence that Carson lived in the 2nd District prior to 1999, and I don't believe he ever claimed to live there. He was born in Arizona and is a graduate of Jenks High School. His ads, if I recall correctly, referred to his family's deep roots in the 2nd District, but never to his personal roots.

And yes, Republicans do this too, although it doesn't seem to be as frequent among Republicans.

Everything I've described here is legal (except perhaps for being simultaneously registered to vote in two counties). With respect to Congress, there is only the requirement to reside in the state, although people don't usually like to vote for someone who lives elsewhere. In the UK, this sort of thing is unremarkable -- traditionally most of the politicians lived in the London area and might have no connection to the districts they represented, although this has begun to change.

Speaking of ballot access, the first day of filing for the 2004 Oklahoma general election is over. With so many open seats, thanks to term limits, filing has been heavy.

There are two more days for filing, so I wouldn't read too much into the absence of a name on the list, particularly if the candidate has filed ethics paperwork and has a formal campaign organization. It may just be more convenient to coordinate filing with some other appointment in Oklahoma City. Over the next two days, we'll see the rest of the previously announced candidates sign up. The party organizations know where they're covered and where they're not, so you will see some arm-twisting and cajoling to limit the number of races where a candidate goes unopposed. There will also be a few self-starters who decide "what the heck" at the last minute.

A few interesting notes:

Virginia Blue Jeans Jenner has filed for the Democrat primary in House District 12.

So far, Tulsa County incumbents are mostly without opposition. The exceptions are Nancy Riley (SD 37), Sue Tibbs (HD 23), John Smaligo (HD 74), and Roy McClain (HD 71). Roy is known at the Capitol as "Dead Man Walking" since his win in 2002 over former State Rep. Chad Stites in an ordinarily Republican district. It's assumed that the GOP will retake the district with a solid, scandal-free candidate like Dan Sullivan, who filed today.

Wanda Cruson of Kingston is at 75 the oldest candidate for State House so far. She and her husband were honored at the 2003 Oklahoma Republican Convention for their many years of service in various areas, including candidate recruitment. And now she's a candidate herself, the sole Republican in a Democrat-held open seat in south central Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Libertarian Party reports that their request for an injunction in their ballot access case will come before a district court judge this Friday. Even though I'm a Republican, I've always thought there was something unfair about giving two parties official status and requiring other parties to recertify themselves after each election. While Libertarians are able to file for office, in Oklahoma they may only file as Independents, and that is how they will appear on the ballot. A third party has to file a petition to attain official status, which allows people to register under that banner and allows the party name to appear on state ballots.

The fairest thing would be to have a separation of party and state. Leave it to each party to decide how to select its nominees. If a party wishes to hold a primary, it can pay the state to cover the cost of the election and to manage its membership list. Instead, a party could choose to certify its own members and conduct its nominating process by mail, online, through in-person voting that it staffs and manages itself, or through a system of caucuses and conventions.

For the general election, the ballot could completely omit party information, making it each party's responsibility to publicize the candidates it endorses. Alternatively, the state could set some minimal standards for party certification, and the ballot could list each endorsement each candidate receives from a registered party. As in New York State, a candidate might be endorsed by multiple parties.

But my pragmatic side doesn't want to see the door opened to general elections with large numbers of candidates as long as we have a system of voting that malfunctions when more than two candidates are on the ballot. A system like Instant Runoff Voting is the only way to allow voters a wide range of choices while ensuring that the majority rules in the outcome of the election. Instant Runoff Voting is "spoiler-proof," eliminating one of the traditional arguments against easy ballot access, and freeing voters from any worries about wasting votes.

Congressman Tom Cole is pushing for $8 million in federal funds to build an interchange on I-35 just north of the Red River to provide more direct access to the Chickasaw casino. There is an exit a mile south, and there isn't anything else near the casino requiring an interchange. Seems to me the Chickasaws should have bought land nearer an existing interchange if they wanted better access.

OkieDoke has a few thoughts on the matter, and here's a link to the Daily Oklahoman story (free registration required). Cole sees no problem with asking the government to fund this, and doesn't consider this a question of promoting gambling:

The congressman said he understands many Oklahomans might have qualms about using federal money to benefit a casino. He said he doesn't know of any similar, federally funded project in Oklahoma, but said there are precedents in other states.

"I look at it as not taking a stand on gaming ... and in the past I've not been particularly supporting of gaming, but I look at the economic factor," Cole said. "There's no question that when we legalized horse racing in Oklahoma, we became a Class II (gambling) state."

Now, pay close attention to this line:

Cole said he was comfortable securing the money because "we build roads for industries all the time" and because "it isn't costing the taxpayers of Oklahoma a dime."

Yep, Tom, money just grows on trees in Washington. They harvest it from the slopes of the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

That kind of sentiment is why so many conservatives were rooting for Marc Nuttle to prevail in the 2002 4th District primary, and why many of us were disappointed with J. C. Watts' last minute announcement that he would not be running. The conventional wisdom is that Watts had tipped off Cole to his plans long before he made them publicly known, giving Cole, who ran Watts' campaigns, a huge headstart over any other candidate.

Cole's attitude is all too prevalent in Washington, as Tom Coburn illustrates in his book Breach of Trust. Coburn recounts the budget battles of his years in Congress, fighting against members in his own party who put their own reelection prospects ahead of the best interests of the country. It's why we never had a real budget surplus, and why discretionary spending continues to climb, despite the Republicans' ten years in the majority. Even if you don't care for Coburn's positions on social issues, you should read his book to understand how the budget game is played.

I'm supporting Tom Coburn in the Republican primary for Senate. I trust him to do the right thing, and to help stiffen the spines of his brother Republicans to do the right thing, too. My sense is that Kirk Humphreys is cut from the same cloth as Tom Cole. Without a doubt, Humphreys is a better choice than Brad Carson, and if Humphreys is the Republican nominee he'll have my full support. And I'm much happier to have Tom Cole in Congress than a Democrat alternative. But our nation needs more people like Tom Coburn in Congress.

Wednesday night I stopped by an open house at Tom Coburn's Tulsa campaign headquarters in Eton Square at 61st & Memorial. The candidate himself was there, mingling and chatting with us.

I was impressed by the folks who turned out. It wasn't a huge crowd -- I don't think they gave the event a lot of publicity -- but the people in attendance were the sort of grassroots Republican activists who provided the manpower and commitment for past upset victories over "anointed" candidates. Many of those present worked for John Sullivan in his special election win, and some were involved back in 1980 when a little-known State Senator from Ponca City came from nowhere to become a U. S. Senator.

The crowd even included some staffers who work for Republican elected officials who have endorsed Kirk Humphreys (and now may be wishing they hadn't).

At Saturday's Republican state convention, Don Nickles acknowledged the three main candidates to replace him, and the effect was like an applause-o-meter, with Coburn getting the loudest, most enthusiastic response, followed by Anthony, with Humphreys getting a subdued cheer.

There is no doubt that the grassroots activists are passionate about Tom Coburn. The question will be whether Coburn's campaign can effectively organize and mobilize these people to win over the vast majority of non-activists who will show up in large numbers for the July primary. Humphreys had a lot of young people working for him at the state convention, stationed at nearly every door, handing out stickers, bottled water, and "Candy from Kirk". (I had the sense, though, that a lot of these attractive young folk were involved in the Humphreys campaign because of all the other attractive young folk who are involved. Kind of like a teenage boy joining a church because the girls in the youth group are cuter than the church his folks go to.) Bob Anthony's daughters appeared to be everywhere as well. Coburn's people seemed to be fewer in number and mostly stayed close to their table.

The Coburn campaign is looking for Tulsa volunteers, and they'll be having a volunteer training seminar this Saturday, May 15, from 10 am to noon in the East Atrium of Cityplex Towers, 81st & Lewis. Call Regional Director Derek Sparks at 918-294-8352 for info or visit www.coburnforsenate.com

This has been in the works for a while, but I hadn't wanted to say anything until it was official. On Saturday, I was elected by the Oklahoma Republican Convention as one of 23 at-large delegates to this year's Republican National Convention. The at-large slate, which was nominated by the state party's Executive Committee, includes Corporation Commissioner Denise Bode, Tulsa Mayor Bill LaFortune, State Representatives Odilia Dank and Fred Perry, and a few other officials, but most of the delegates are grass-roots volunteers.

In addition to the 23 at-large delegates, each of the five congressional district conventions elected three delegates. The state chairman and Oklahoma's two representatives on the Republican National Committee round out the delegation. Except for those three officials, there's an alternate for each delegate. Councilor Chris Medlock will be serving as an alternate.

Republicans seeking a place on the Executive Committee's slate had to send in an application listing our involvement in the party. A couple of Saturdays ago, the Executive Committee conducted brief interviews of the 49 people who applied to serve as delegates or alternates. There were three more applicants than places, so a few folks were disappointed.

One of those who didn't make the cut sought to be elected by the full convention. Richard Engle, who had served as a delegate and alternate to previous conventions, was nominated "from the floor" for alternate. He circulated a nominating petition and received 100 signatures to qualify, and so his name appeared on the ballot along with the 23 people nominated by the Executive Committee. The state convention delegates could mark up to 23 names on the ballot, and it took a while to count the votes, although most people voted for the Executive Committee's slate. Engle lost and declared it a defeat for the grass-roots, but the reality is that the party leadership -- coming out of the grass-roots and elected by the grass-roots -- and a majority of the 772 state convention delegates didn't vote for him. (In most counties, the only qualification to be a state convention delegate is to be a registered Republican and to sign up and be willing to spend a beautiful May Saturday indoors listening to political speeches. A few small counties sent "closed" delegations, meaning the county convention elected a fixed number of delegates to represent the county at the state convention.

This will be my first time to a national convention. Even though my mind has already been made up for me on the most important vote -- I'm bound to vote for the winner of Oklahoma's presidential preference primary -- we'll also be considering the party's platform and the rules by which the 2008 presidential nominating process will be conducted. I expect to be writing a lot about this as the summer unfolds.

Mary Easley got a bit of a scare. She should have won handily in her son's old district, but she won by only 350 votes over Jeff Johnson, a political novice. Congratulations to Jeff on running a strong race against big odds.

So the Republicans have not gained any ground in the State Senate, but the vacancy in Mary Easley's House seat presents an opportunity to Republicans. The GOP's Frank Pitezel held the seat for many years. Pitezel was beaten by Bruce Niemi in 1990. The district was redrawn in 1991, and Flint Breckenridge beat Niemi to take back the seat for the GOP in 1992. In '96, Mary Easley outworked and outhustled Breckenridge to win by only 2% (300 votes). No one has come close to beating her since then, even though Republicans and Democrats are nearly even in registration and turnout.

Because the vacancy in House 78 comes so late in the year, the vacancy will not be filled with a special election -- it will be decided through the normal election process. I'll be following this one with interest, since I live in the district. With the right candidate, this could be one of the seats that puts the Republicans in the majority in one house of the legislature, for the first time since the election of 1920.

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a free-market think-tank, has published a "piglet" book for Oklahoma, listing examples of questionable expenditures and opportunities for improving efficiency in state government. The book is modeled after the one produced annually by Citizens Against Government Waste.

OCPA will square off against representatives from the Oklahoma Public Employees Association (OPEA) in a debate to be televised this Sunday, March 28, at 1:30 pm, on OETA (channel 11 in Tulsa).

From the Piglet Book:

While state's problems are not unique, government waste, inefficiency and mismanagement are marbled throughout the Oklahoma state budget.

That recalls the following quote, from Don Mele, VP for Government Affairs for the New York City Partnership and Chamber of Commerce:

"Fat in the government is not like fat on a chicken; it's like fat in a steak. It's marbled through."

And accordingly difficult to eliminate. This debate should be enlightening.

A professor at the University of Akron, of all places, has a list of current Oklahoma Representatives and Senators and when they will be term-limited, sorted by year when their time is up, and by party.

State Rep. Pam Peterson was on KFAQ this morning explaining the problems with SB 553, the bill that would legalize real casino gambling at Indian casinos and allow horse tracks to offer more limited gambling of the sort currently on offer at Indian bingo halls. Beyond the negative impact on the state, the the compact would run for 15 years, leaving no opportunity before that time for the state legislature to fix any unintended consequences. It still leaves the horse tracks at a competitive disadvantage to the Indian casinos. The state will only be paid by the Indians on a percentage of revenues from new games. Education will not see much money from this, and the legislature is likely to reduce school funding from the general fund to compensate for any gains they make from casino revenues. Because Oklahoma is not a tourist destination, it's estimated that 70% of the revenues will come from our own citizens.

I hear that the OEA is lobbying for this bill. It's a shame that an organization that claims to be devoted to education is pushing an industry dependent on mathematical ignorance.

Beyond the morality and the social effects of gambling, this looks like the usual Oklahoma legislative stitch-up, like the legalization of pari-mutuel betting, which placed restrictions on who could open a track and when they could race, all for the benefit of the DeBartolo family, who owned Remington Park in OKC.

If you're going to open the state up to casino gambling, just repeal the prohibitions against games of chance, and let anyone who wants to open a casino do so. Regulate the industry only to the extent necessary to ensure that the rules of the game are followed -- no loaded dice or stacked decks. SB 553 will only allow certain favored groups and individuals to get in on the act, and since the legislative leaders are in control of who will get in on the act, you can bet they will be richly rewarded by these favored few once they leave office.

That photo of Larry Adair in the Whirled has him wearing the expression of the cat who ate the canary, as if he's figured out how to cash in on this legislative racket, how to convert power to money, and there's nothing you can do to stop him.

There's a key vote on casino gambling (SB 553) in the State House of Representatives this morning. The Whirled is reporting a survey of Tulsa area representatives. Below are the names and addresses of those who said they were undecided or didn't respond to the survey. All but Lucky Lamons are Republicans.

UPDATE: A reader forwards a response from Sue Tibbs that she is voting no. I suspect that Adkins and Liotta are also "no" votes as well. As for Lucky Lamons, I don't have a sense one way or the other, but if you hear anything definite from him or the others, let me know (blog at batesline dot com) and I will make the appropriate adjustments.

By the way, please note that Rep. Ron Peterson (as opposed to Ron Peters) of Broken Arrow is listed in the Whirled as a "no" vote, as is Rep. Pam Peterson (no relation to Ron).

Undecided:

Chris Hastings (undecided), hastingsch@lsb.state.ok.us

Ron Peters (undecided), petersro@lsb.state.ok.us

Did not respond to survey

Dennis Adkins (did not respond to survey), adkinsda@lsb.state.ok.us

Lucky Lamons (did not respond to survey), lamonslu@lsb.state.ok.us

Mark Liotta (did not respond to survey), liottama@lsb.state.ok.us

In general, to find your state representative, click here. This page includes links to district maps.

Here's the page with an alphabetical list of state representatives, with each rep's e-mail address, direct phone number, and a link to his or her personal information page.

The toll-free number for the State House of Representatives (not the State Senate) is 1-800-522-8502.

For the State Senate: The State Senate homepage is here.

From this page, you can get to a pictorial directory, an alphabetical directory, a directory by district, and maps of districts. From any of those pages, if you click on a senator's name, you'll get his or her direct line, e-mail address, and name of the administrative assistant. The State Senate doesn't have a toll-free phone number.

In general, a State Representative's e-mail is:

<lastname><first-two-letters-of-lastname>@lsb.state.ok.us

So Rep. John Q. Public would be publicjo@lsb.state.ok.us

In general, a State Senator's e-mail is:

<lastname>@lsb.state.ok.us

So Senator Public's e-mail would be public@lsb.state.ok.us

I'm not aware of any exceptions to these rules, but they may exist, so double-check at the above links.

Here it is, courtesy of a kind reader of this site. Click here for the letter itself, or follow the link below for a text version.

Thank you, Senator Taylor, for bringing frivolous lawsuit reform front and center in the political debate.

Something that amuses me about this letter -- the helpful note that Taylor's firm has an office just across the border from Texas in Durant. As you drive across the border into Arkansas, you find tattoo parlors, a service illegal in our state. Drive north into Kansas and border convenience stores sell lottery tickets to Oklahomans, unattainable in their hometown. And the first thing to greet your eyes as you cross the Red River into Texas on I-35 is a shop that appears to be designed to attract Oklahomans in search of literature and paraphernalia not legally available in the Sooner State. So now lawyers will set up "hot tort" shops in Oklahoma border towns, luring Texans across the Red River with promises of big settlements, the kind they can't get in Texas anymore.

Enough of that -- here's the letter.

(Note: A "bleg" is a blog entry that involves begging for something. "blog" + "beg" = "bleg".)

My searching has been in vain. I would like to read the letter to trial lawyers from Oklahoma Sen. Stratton Taylor (D-Claremore), which brought a response from the Wall Street Journal editorial page (reprinted in Sunday's Whirled). Having read responses from the Tulsa Whirled, Brad Henry, Boy Governor, and the Claremore Daily Progress (which writes that Taylor has nothing for which to apologize and his critics are hypocrites), I wanted to read Taylor's letter for myself. If anyone can assist me with this, e-mail me at blog at batesline dot com. Also, let me know if you have a better link to the WSJ editorial. I'd prefer to link directly to their site, but cannot find the editorial there. [UPDATE: An Alert Reader has provided the requested link to the WSJ article. Thanks. Still looking for Taylor's letter.]

I noticed something strange about the Whirled's Monday editorial, linked above. They have this to say about the former leader of the State Senate:

State Sen. Stratton Taylor has written a shameful, self-serving letter to national trial lawyers inviting them to bring lawsuits in "friendly" Oklahoma.

It's not the first time the longtime senator has used his position of public trust to feather his own nest. He ought, at the very least, to resign his position in the Senate.

They say it's not the first time, but I scanned the Whirled's archives and could find no previous occasion on which the Whirled criticized Taylor for using his position of public trust to feather his own nest. The Whirled reported Taylor's legal work for the chicken industry's defense against the City of Tulsa's lawsuit, but there was no editorial denunciation or call for resignation. Strange too that the Whirled editorial board criticizes Taylor for taking campaign funds from the hog industry -- I'm not aware that the Whirled has condemned the hog industry or its practices. They certainly don't have a problem with business interests giving campaign dollars to influence public policy: They've never said an unkind word about the contributions of F&M Bank officers to city council candidates in the 2002 elections, or the heavy giving by development interests in city races.

But for real amusement, click on the links to read the Claremore paper's defense of their hometown boy. Here's a sample, from the newspaper that touts its connections with Will Rogers:

When Wall Street, Republican legislators, state chamber of commerce and the Daily Oklahoman all jump on Claremore's Sen. Stratton Taylor at once, be assured Taylor is probably protecting the best interests of the average citizen.

Taylor was hotly attacked by this coalition of partisan forces for offering his law firm s service to Texas trial lawyers who face new, severe and untested limits on the amount of money they can recover for injured clients.

While Oklahoma has clamped down on torts, the workers compensation rates north of the Red River are markedly less than those in Texas. This happened under Senator Taylor's legislative leadership.

In a letter to Texas attorneys, Taylor simply outlined the advantages of his highly successful law firm and suggested that Oklahoma law was more open to equity and fairness than Lone Star justice....

In another editorial they absolve the Whirled from involvement in the conspiracy against Taylor. They must not have read Monday's paper.

For more amusement, search the Daily Progress' site for the word Stipe, and read as they fall all over themselves mourning for the loss of this great humanitarian.