Day-before-election roundup

MeeCiteeWurkor went to the Tulsa County Election Board website, printed out the ballot for his precinct, and is circling his picks, which he shares with us.

(And I agree with Mee that the Barnett ad jingle is cheesy.

There's a man we trust in Oklahoma. Howard (beat) Barneh-ett. B-A-R-N-E-T-T Howard (beat) Barneh-ett.

It sounds like a generic ad designed to fit just about any name and any state. If, e.g., Julie Neidlinger were running for governor of her home state, it would be easy to fit "North Dakota" in place of "Oklahoma," and "Julie Neidlinger" has the same number of syllables as notes they use to sing "Howard Barnett." You'd be pressed to spell out her last name in the time available, though.)

Steve Roemerman challenges the claim that his state rep, Sue Tibbs, is a do-nothing, listing important legislation that she helped write and pass. He also challenges her opponent's claim that he's not a politician:

The dictionary defines a politician as

A. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
B. One who holds or seeks a political office.

A. Steve Gallo is the Vice Chairman of the Tulsa County Democrat Party. I think that qualifies as actively involved in politics...especially party politics.

B. Steve is actively seeking a political office.

Dan Paden responds to those who say the Republicans don't deserve to win this election:

The problem I have is that the only realistically electable opposition is the Democratic Party, and those who fail to go vote Republican this year are saying, in practical terms, that Democrats deserve to win. Ah, no. I don't think so.

As disappointed as I am in some Republicans, I can't turn a blind eye to the complete and utter disaster that is today's Democratic Party....

Of course, some of my Democrat acquaintances will be saying, "Isn't it sad that the best you can say about your party is that they're not Democrats?" Well, yeah, it would be. As it happens, I don't think that that's the best thing you can say about Republicans. But even if it was, it's sadder by far that the Democratic Party is so bad these days--so dedicated to butchering infants, just for starters--that that is actually reason enough to vote Republican.

Jeff Shaw looks at the purported benefits and the damage done by Brad Henry's lottery. Not only has it taken in less than half of the revenues Henry promised, the impact on the public school classroom is minimal:

So start at $205 million. Then, transfer the statutory amount of $68 Million. Then take 45% of $68 million - that's $31 million. Wow! Where'd all that money go?

To see what kind of direct impact this might have on each student and teacher, take that $31 million dollars and distribute that over the population of K-12 pupils and teachers. According to the Heritage Foundation there are around 664,728 K-12 public school students and teachers combined. I added the pupils and teachers together because that is how it's distributed above in the rules.

This comes to the ANNUAL grand total per student and teacher benefit in the area of $47.00.

That's compared to $6,176.00 in per pupil spending in 2004. Less than a 1% increase, funded on the backs of "the poor and disillusioned."

The Tulsa Whirled put out its list of endorsements. It's instructive to see the whole list in one place.

Here are the Tulsa Beacon's endorsements.

A reader writes to say that State Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D-HD78) is telling tall tales:

We received two flyers the other day. One was from Jeannie McDaniel and the other from Jesse Guardiola. [My husband] noticed on Jesse's flyer that McDaniel had voted "against gov. Brad Henry's Achieving Classroom Excellence initiative." On Jeannie's flyer is stated the opposite, "helped pass SB 1792". I looked on her voting record and sure enough, she had voted NO to SB 1792. We just thought that was interesting. I looked up her voting record on www.vote-smart.org.

Another politically-active friend sends along his take on judgeships, advising the defeat of the two members of the Court of Criminal Appeals who are on this year's retention ballot:

I am voting "no" on both that are up because in my opinion they have overturned the unanimous opinion of 12 jurors too often. I think sending them some "no" votes might send a message that we want jurors' opinions to prevail except in unusual circumstances. Some also say that the two that are up (Henry appointees) are too liberal.

He also includes this disclaimer, which applies to my judicial recommendations as well:

I would not presume to tell anyone how to vote but in order to pass on what my decision is, to anyone interested, as a result of talking to attorneys and victim advocates that I respect, I am putting out this email. In no way does this mean that the candidate that I am not voting for is not qualified. The opposite choice may make a good judge. I am simply passing on the consensus from those people I respect.

That's all for now. Tune into 1170 KFAQ this morning -- I'll be on all morning for a special election preview.