Senator Jim Reynolds who won last Tuesday by 159 votes now is involved in a recount. It is believed that several voting irregularities took place in District 43. His opponent Dan Boren has also requested a recount. Vote totals were slow coming in last Tuesday night. In Cleveland County, a voting machine lost power and the precinct votes were recounted.
They put up a candidate with a famous name, kept him below the radar screen for the entirety of the campaign, then blasted Senator Reynolds with $100K of deceptive television ads and a week's worth of attack mail. They came within 159 votes.
The recount starts tomorrow and could take two or more days. Stayed tuned.
Bob
Monday, November 10, 2008
Ethics Commission
Why should our elected officials be allowed to accept one thin dime from a lobbyists? Our elected officials should not be allowed to have even a hamburger paid for by a lobbyists. They should never, under any circumstance, be allowed to accept a gift of any kind from a lobbyists. I have sold to Wal Mart the past 35 years and I have had numerous lunches and dinners with buyers, never in all that time did I buy a meal for one buyer. If my product was the right product, I received the business if not, I did not. If we are serious about cleaning up politics in Oklahoma then I hope the Ethics Commission shows some guts and takes a stand and stops all gifts and lunches.
The leaders of the House and Senate should take a stand and send out a letter to all lobbyist explaining that Christmas season is just around the corner and all elected officials are not allowed to accept gifts, including all assistants.
Bob
Oklahoma ethics rule could ban gifts from lobbyists
MINNESOTA LAW MAY SERVE AS A GUIDE FOR ‘THINGS OF VALUE’
Comments 5
BY MICHAEL MCNUTT
Published: November 10, 2008
A proposed rule to ban lobbyists in Oklahoma from buying dinners, expensive gifts or tickets to sporting events is similar to a measure that has worked well the past 14 years in Minnesota, an official from that state said.
Gary Goldsmith, executive director of the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, said the rule banning most gifts from lobbyists to state officials and employees is not difficult to enforce.
It took several years to get the Legislature to pass the rule prohibiting most gifts to the 201 legislators and about 2,300 state officials, board members and agency heads, he said. Legislative employees also are covered in the ban. An exception to the rule allows gifts such as a plaque with a resale value of $5 or less or a trinket or memento that costs $5 or less
END OF CAMARADERIE?
A proposal has been submitted to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to prohibit lobbyists from giving "things of value” to state officers and state employees. It would outlaw state officers and state employees from receiving lobbyists’ gifts.
Goldsmith said lobbyists bought meals for legislators and brought in food for lunches or dinners during late-night sessions.
"That all ended, virtually instantly,” Goldsmith said. "There was a fairly traumatic change at that point that some lobbyists still complain about it. They say the camaraderie between legislators and the contact that lobbyists have has been diminished.”
The Ethics Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. Friday in Ponca City’s City Hall on that proposal and several others. Commissioners will vote early next year on which proposals to pass on to legislators.
Earlier this year, commissioners approved a rule, which passed legislative review, reducing lobbyists’ spending on elected officials from $300 to $100 per calendar year. The rule requires lobbyists to disclose gifts after spending more than $10 on a state official or aide during each six-month period
Lobbyists had spent more than $208,000 on legislators in 2007, a 28 percent increase over the previous year, according to Ethics Commission records.
Bobby Stem, a lobbyist with the firm Capitol Gains, said he doesn’t oppose a ban.
"Our firm policy has been to keep those gifts to a minimum just so we can always avoid any hint of impropriety. We believe that it not only protects us at the firm but it protects the image of the members that we work with.”
The leaders of the House and Senate should take a stand and send out a letter to all lobbyist explaining that Christmas season is just around the corner and all elected officials are not allowed to accept gifts, including all assistants.
Bob
Oklahoma ethics rule could ban gifts from lobbyists
MINNESOTA LAW MAY SERVE AS A GUIDE FOR ‘THINGS OF VALUE’
Comments 5
BY MICHAEL MCNUTT
Published: November 10, 2008
A proposed rule to ban lobbyists in Oklahoma from buying dinners, expensive gifts or tickets to sporting events is similar to a measure that has worked well the past 14 years in Minnesota, an official from that state said.
Gary Goldsmith, executive director of the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, said the rule banning most gifts from lobbyists to state officials and employees is not difficult to enforce.
It took several years to get the Legislature to pass the rule prohibiting most gifts to the 201 legislators and about 2,300 state officials, board members and agency heads, he said. Legislative employees also are covered in the ban. An exception to the rule allows gifts such as a plaque with a resale value of $5 or less or a trinket or memento that costs $5 or less
END OF CAMARADERIE?
A proposal has been submitted to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to prohibit lobbyists from giving "things of value” to state officers and state employees. It would outlaw state officers and state employees from receiving lobbyists’ gifts.
Goldsmith said lobbyists bought meals for legislators and brought in food for lunches or dinners during late-night sessions.
"That all ended, virtually instantly,” Goldsmith said. "There was a fairly traumatic change at that point that some lobbyists still complain about it. They say the camaraderie between legislators and the contact that lobbyists have has been diminished.”
The Ethics Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. Friday in Ponca City’s City Hall on that proposal and several others. Commissioners will vote early next year on which proposals to pass on to legislators.
Earlier this year, commissioners approved a rule, which passed legislative review, reducing lobbyists’ spending on elected officials from $300 to $100 per calendar year. The rule requires lobbyists to disclose gifts after spending more than $10 on a state official or aide during each six-month period
Lobbyists had spent more than $208,000 on legislators in 2007, a 28 percent increase over the previous year, according to Ethics Commission records.
Bobby Stem, a lobbyist with the firm Capitol Gains, said he doesn’t oppose a ban.
"Our firm policy has been to keep those gifts to a minimum just so we can always avoid any hint of impropriety. We believe that it not only protects us at the firm but it protects the image of the members that we work with.”
Walters Speaks Out
Now David Walters shares his thoughts on the election. We love it when liberals like Walters and Turpin speak out. As long as they keep talking the Republican Party will continue to grow in Oklahoma. David Walters' finished as Governor of Oklahoma when he departed Oklahoma's Governor's Mansion in 1995 after a single term and an indictment on eight felony counts. Remember the midnight hearing?
Bob
What’s The Matter With Oklahoma?
Posted on November 8th, 2008 by David Walters
What’s The Matter With Oklahoma?
I waited three days in the hopes that my fuming at Oklahoma’s counter performance to the collective heave ho that the rest of the nation gave to the Republicans would subside.
It has not.
Amending the title of Thomas Franks’ insightful book about how conservatives won the heart of Kansas … “What’s the Matter with Oklahoma?” Did we really just do this?
We’re the winner of the national championship for the highest McCain/Palin margin at 65.6 percent; the only state where Republicans gained ground in the state house, senate and statewide offices; and the only state in which McCain/Palin carried every county.
Not one of our 77 counties went democratic, not a single blue dot (see chart). Sen. Obama polled 10.8 percent in Beaver County. This was not out of 100 votes where percentages are easily distorted, but out of 2,462 votes cast.
Now you are thinking that we cannot expect much progressive thought out of a county best known for its cow-chip throwing contest (two tries if you lick your fingers after the first). But I have been to Beaver county and met good people and don’t understand how 89.2% decided Sarah Palin should be vice president of the United States.
It’s not just our friends in Beaver scouring the landscape for aerodynamic cow patties. Twenty-one counties fell below 25 percent for Obama and 39 counties, more than half of the 77, fell below 30 percent.
The top bastion of democratic performance? Cherokee county, where they used to spray for Republicans, held McCain/Palin to “only” 56.percent. The heart of our most democratic county only allowed Obama to get within 12.2 percent of a single county victory.
Howard Dean called me as I was looking at these numbers. He wanted to say, “thank you” … for what I have no earthly idea.
I unloaded about our local results, but Howard didn’t take the bait. His politically correct language has been finely honed from thousands of scathing attacks on each of his utterances. He opined that the economy is much better in Oklahoma than most states and that many other states have a sizable portion of their population that would normally be concerned about leaders who are “different” than they are. But in those states the economy and the need for change overwhelmed their normal reticence to select someone “unlike” them.
Man that guy can talk.
While I am fuming, foaming, uttering and mumbling obscenities, he sounds like he just graduated from The Obama School of Cool.
So should we do anything?
Of course we should. Not just for competitive partisan reasons, but because it’s not good for Oklahoma to run so counter.
One national media service recently said based on the polls, the future of the Republican Party lies with “old white people and hayseed states.” I don’t believe that, but much of the nation does and we don’t need to be in that category.
Another pundit said that to understand the current Republican Party one has to “understand the unique culture and politics of Appalachia.”
Are you kidding me? Hayseed states and Appalachia! Call your local chamber and ask them if they think this is somehow good for us.
From a national image it’s a disaster. From a local basis can you imagine how this emboldens republicans in the state house, now firmly in control of the legislature. Do you think we are going to hear much about education, health care and jobs — or are we simply going to get a double dose of Guns, God, and Gays?
Gun sales in Oklahoma skyrocketed immediately prior to the election and particularly afterwards. The vast majority of these Oklahoma voters really believe that Obama — in addition to not being a Christian, being affiliated with terrorists and intent on doubling our taxes — is also going to take their guns!
What was that comment during the campaign about clinging?
So what do we do?
Before we start shouting and stepping all over each other like the national Republicans, we should first calmly talk about process. How do we determine what are the highest contributing factors to this unusual trend in Oklahoma. Let’s assume that we can identify with polling and focus groups the top 20 contributing factors, and then perhaps we can identify that half of these we cannot do anything about … but a plan to address the other half may have merit.
I have lots of ideas … but I really have to cool off first.
David Walters
Homosexuals Attack Woman Carrying Cross
This is in Palm Springs where a group of homosexuals attack an elderly woman carring a cross during Prop 8 protest.
President Bush
President Bush will soon be heading home and for many that day cannot come soon enough. Count me among those who will miss him and his bedrock decency.
He had a rough road from day one. His first inauguration struck me as a portent. I was there, shivering in the grandstands on Pennsylvania Avenue. At the exact moment the president heard "Hail to the Chief" for the first time and was announced to the audience, a sleet storm descended from the skies.
It has never let up.
Through it all Mr. Bush kept his head up and soldiered on. He took the criticism in stride. I remember riding with him in his presidential limousine to the Washington Hilton for a speech. A woman standing at an intersection directed an obscene gesture at him that I had hoped he missed. The president waved to her and with a bemused look said to me, "Did you see what she did?"
Many other Americans, particularly the "values voters" who helped elect him twice, will miss him because of what he achieved: Samuel Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court, children in schools that now are better because they are accountable, African women who now have medicines for their HIV-infected babies, and religious charities that are finally being treated by government as partners instead of rivals.
I remember coming to the West Wing one morning before the daily 7:30 senior staff meeting and seeing Mr. Bush at his desk in the Oval Office, reading a daily devotional. I remember the look of sorrow on his face as he signed letters to the families of the fallen. When he met with recovering addicts whose lives were transformed by a faith-based program, he spoke plainly of his own humiliating journey years ago with alcohol. When a Liberian refugee broke into tears after recounting her escape to freedom in America, the president went over and held and comforted her.
Little acts behind the curtain like these inspired intense loyalty by staff members. They spoke of someone never too busy or burdened to care -- like when he took time on Air Force One to call my wife when she was sick. The president's true character rendered his media image pure caricature.
Mother Teresa was asked at the end of her life whether she was discouraged because after decades of caring for the dying and destitute in Calcutta little seemed to have changed. She replied, "No. God doesn't call me to be successful. God calls me to be faithful."
History will decide whether George W. Bush was a successful President. But he was faithful. He had a charge to keep and he kept it.
Mr. Towey was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives from 2002-2006. He is president of Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa.
From The Wall Street Journal
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Obama Is Going To Try To Ban Guns!
"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In
Friday, November 07, 2008
Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:
"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.
"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.
"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:
"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.
"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.
"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.
Buying Firewood
Tips on burning firewood:
Buy seasoned wood. It needs a full year to season because it takes most woods six months to dry to 20 percent moisture content.
The cut edge of the wood should be dry and dark, indicating it has seasoned to some degree. Burn the hardwoods because they burn hotter and longer.
Osage orange is the best hardwood for burning beause it burns long and hot. Hickory is second best, followed by black locust. Mulberry also is good for burning, followed by white oaks, hawthorn and red oaks. Ash and hackberry also are good choices.
Soft woods such as cottonwood make poor firewood. Cottonwood puts out half
the heat of Osage orange.
A high-quality wood stove heats more efficiently than a fireplace.
Keep chimneys and stove pipes clean. Residue can build up and catch on fire, especially if the wood is too green or is pine or cedar.
Never use gasoline to start a fire in a fireplace or stove.
Use smoke detectors and have a fire extinguisher near the stove or fireplace.
Store firewood away from the house so it doesn’t create a fire haz¬ard to your home.
Keep firewood off the ground on pallets or a commercial wood rack. Left on the ground, wood will soak up moisture, deteriorate and attract insects.
Keep wood covered so it doesn’t get wet from rain, snow or sleet. The firewood will last longer and burn more efficiently.
A rick of wood is not an official measurement, said Charles Carter, the program administrator for weights and measures with the Agri¬culture Department. A cord is the standard and it is normally 4 feet wide by 4 feet high and 8 feet long. Ricks are roughly 16 to 19 inches long by 4 feet high and 8 feet long.
Make sure you get the full measurement a seller says you’re getting and get a receipt. That will document the transaction so the weights and measures division can investigate if the delivery falls short of expectations. Complaints can lead to a $500 penalty per count per day.
For the brochure “Oklahoma Firewood Facts, call the Agriculture Department at 522’6158 or write: The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Forestry Division, P.O. Box 528804, Oklahoma City, OK
73152-8804.
Buy seasoned wood. It needs a full year to season because it takes most woods six months to dry to 20 percent moisture content.
The cut edge of the wood should be dry and dark, indicating it has seasoned to some degree. Burn the hardwoods because they burn hotter and longer.
Osage orange is the best hardwood for burning beause it burns long and hot. Hickory is second best, followed by black locust. Mulberry also is good for burning, followed by white oaks, hawthorn and red oaks. Ash and hackberry also are good choices.
Soft woods such as cottonwood make poor firewood. Cottonwood puts out half
the heat of Osage orange.
A high-quality wood stove heats more efficiently than a fireplace.
Keep chimneys and stove pipes clean. Residue can build up and catch on fire, especially if the wood is too green or is pine or cedar.
Never use gasoline to start a fire in a fireplace or stove.
Use smoke detectors and have a fire extinguisher near the stove or fireplace.
Store firewood away from the house so it doesn’t create a fire haz¬ard to your home.
Keep firewood off the ground on pallets or a commercial wood rack. Left on the ground, wood will soak up moisture, deteriorate and attract insects.
Keep wood covered so it doesn’t get wet from rain, snow or sleet. The firewood will last longer and burn more efficiently.
A rick of wood is not an official measurement, said Charles Carter, the program administrator for weights and measures with the Agri¬culture Department. A cord is the standard and it is normally 4 feet wide by 4 feet high and 8 feet long. Ricks are roughly 16 to 19 inches long by 4 feet high and 8 feet long.
Make sure you get the full measurement a seller says you’re getting and get a receipt. That will document the transaction so the weights and measures division can investigate if the delivery falls short of expectations. Complaints can lead to a $500 penalty per count per day.
For the brochure “Oklahoma Firewood Facts, call the Agriculture Department at 522’6158 or write: The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Forestry Division, P.O. Box 528804, Oklahoma City, OK
73152-8804.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Teacher Browbeats Student Because She Likes McCain
Notice that the teacher is wearing an Obama pin while teaching. Just a little double standards, don't you think!
Bob
What Infuriates The Taxpayer
Below is the headline on Yahoo today. Did we not learn anything from the bailout? Look at this ad "NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED"! It might as well say "CALLING ALL Illegals", we make loans. This is the kind of crap that infuriates everyone. The loan companies make risky loans and if they have a problems we, the taxpayers, bail them out. I am requesting that Congressman Tom Cole and Congresswoman Mary Fallin investigate Lending Tree. The government does not need to be in the bailing out business. Now, the auto industry is in trouble and are requesting government bail out. Not only no, but NO NO NO NO!
Bob
Fed cuts rate. Mortgage rates as low as 5.47% APR. $300k for $1,657/mo. No SSN req'd. LendingTree® Quickmatch
Bob
Fed cuts rate. Mortgage rates as low as 5.47% APR. $300k for $1,657/mo. No SSN req'd. LendingTree® Quickmatch
Friday, November 7, 2008
Our Environment And Plastic
This is an interesting story. Plastic bags and bottles are really bad for our environment. It takes 10 years for just one plastic bottle to dessolve. In the United States we throw away 58 million plastic bottles a day. Something has to be done. My comment will not sit well with my conservative friends but the tax makes sense. This issue needs to be addressed by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats have made the environment an issue while Republicans keep their head buried in the sand!.
Bob
wants to nickel and dime you at the grocery store - taxing you an extra 5 cents for every plastic bag you take home.
The controversial charge could raise at least $16 million for the cash-strapped city while keeping tons of plastic out of landfills, city officials said Thursday - but some outraged shoppers aren't buying it.
RELATED: POLS LOOK TO NIX MAYOR'S TAX-GRAB PLAN
"Bloomberg is a piece of work," Clemelda Gipson, 39, said outside a D'Agostino grocery store in Chelsea. "Food is expensive and now we have to pay for the bags, too? They should try to come up with ideas and solutions and not just more taxes."
Others said they would bring their own cloth bags rather than pay more at the store.
"I think it's a good idea. There is way too much plastic being used at the grocery stores anyways," said actress Denise Lute. "We need to be eco-conscious. If I'm charged a nickel it'll make me take my own bag."
New Yorkers use an estimated 1 billion plastic bags per year. City officials aren't sure what bags they plan to tax, or how they'd collect it - though they're considering allowing merchants to charge an extra penny per bag, giving them an incentive to track it.
"They're charging sales taxes already. There's not some massive new overhaul or bureaucracy that's needed," said Rohit Aggarwala, Bloomberg's head of environmental affairs.
"We are hoping that at 6 cents a bag, people would change their behavior."
San Francisco bans plastic bags unless they are biodegradable, while a proposed 20-cent fee in Seattle is on hold pending a challenge. In Ireland, a 33-cent fee pushed plastic bag use down 94%.
New York considered a plastic bag tax earlier this year but settled for a mandatory recycling program, figuring most stores would just switch to paper, Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens) said.
Ikea tried charging customers a nickel per bag, but when demand for its 70 million bags a year dropped 92%, the chain just eliminated them.
"There's a positive impact on the environment," spokesman Joseph Roth said. "It certainly has not hindered our sales, and it has helped our reputation."
Some grocery chains already give customers a discount for every cloth bag they bring. Whole Foods switched its stores to paper bags this year, even though the plastic industry insists paper bags are worse for the environment.
"This would essentially be a food tax," said Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council. "It would have major unintended environmental consequences."
alisberg@nydailynews.com
Joke From Noble
Joke from Noble, America. It actually makes sense.
Some solace for the defeated:
An old sea story
There's an old sea story in the Marine Corps about a lieutenant who inspected his Marines in the field, and afterward told the "Gunny" that the men smelled bad. The lieutenant suggested the solution is that they should change underwear.
The Gunny responded, "Aye, aye, sir, I'll see to it immediately!"
The Gunny went straight to the squad tent and announced, "The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear.
Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowsky, and Brown, you change with Schultz.
Now get to it!"
THE MORAL: A candidate may promise 'change' in Washington , but don't count on things smelling any better.
Some solace for the defeated:
An old sea story
There's an old sea story in the Marine Corps about a lieutenant who inspected his Marines in the field, and afterward told the "Gunny" that the men smelled bad. The lieutenant suggested the solution is that they should change underwear.
The Gunny responded, "Aye, aye, sir, I'll see to it immediately!"
The Gunny went straight to the squad tent and announced, "The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear.
Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowsky, and Brown, you change with Schultz.
Now get to it!"
THE MORAL: A candidate may promise 'change' in Washington , but don't count on things smelling any better.
Top 10 Most Irritating Phrases
Oxford Compiles list of the top ten irritating phrases
The top ten most irritating phrases:
1 - At the end of the day
2 - Fairly unique
3 - I personally
4 - At this moment in time
5 - With all due respect
6 - Absolutely
7 - It's a nightmare
8 - Shouldn't of
9 - 24/7
10 - It's not rocket science
The top ten most irritating phrases:
1 - At the end of the day
2 - Fairly unique
3 - I personally
4 - At this moment in time
5 - With all due respect
6 - Absolutely
7 - It's a nightmare
8 - Shouldn't of
9 - 24/7
10 - It's not rocket science
Why Dana Murphy Won
Dana was out spent 4-1, out lied about 10-0 and beats the corrupt, Jim Roth, Tuesday. What do you do when you are running against the most corrupt, egotistical, arrogant politician in the history of Oklahoma? What do you do when gay groups, from all over the country, are pouring money into your opponent’s campaign, along with some of the wealthiest individuals in Oklahoma? You do exactly what Dana Murphy did in her race for Corporation Commission. You stick to your plan from the beginning. Dana did not return evil for evil she simply talked about how qualified she was to be the next commissioner. Even after Roth said awful things about her and treated her like crap, during the debates, she stayed focused. Dana did not even bring up Roth’s ties to the homosexual agenda that is taking place across the country.
So now just what did Dana do? First of all, Dana had an unbelievable amount of grassroots support. Second, she got out and worked. One day I talked to Dana and she was in the panhandle later that same day she was in southwestern Oklahoma. I have no idea how many miles she put on her truck but I bet she put on more than 10,000 miles during the campaign.
Everyone was impressed with Dana’s knowledge of the Corporation Commission, everywhere she went. She talked to Co-ops all across Oklahoma that normally voted Democrat, supported Dana because of her knowledge.
Several times when I talked to Dana I asked her to defend herself against Roth’s charges and I also stated you need to define him and let people know just how dishonest he his. Dana said that she has a plan and she is sticking to it. I complained that you are going to get beat if you let that jerk say and treat you like you have been doing, Dana would respond, “if I get beat, so be it, but I have put my faith in God and I am not going to go negative and return evil for evil that is just not the Christian way.” I said, “holy crap Dana, you are going to lose.” Dana stated that I did not have enough faith in her. I believe I made her mad.
Dana proved that you do not have to go negative to win an election. Congratulations to Dana, you did one heck of a job and deserves to be our next Corporation Commissioner.
Bob
So now just what did Dana do? First of all, Dana had an unbelievable amount of grassroots support. Second, she got out and worked. One day I talked to Dana and she was in the panhandle later that same day she was in southwestern Oklahoma. I have no idea how many miles she put on her truck but I bet she put on more than 10,000 miles during the campaign.
Everyone was impressed with Dana’s knowledge of the Corporation Commission, everywhere she went. She talked to Co-ops all across Oklahoma that normally voted Democrat, supported Dana because of her knowledge.
Several times when I talked to Dana I asked her to defend herself against Roth’s charges and I also stated you need to define him and let people know just how dishonest he his. Dana said that she has a plan and she is sticking to it. I complained that you are going to get beat if you let that jerk say and treat you like you have been doing, Dana would respond, “if I get beat, so be it, but I have put my faith in God and I am not going to go negative and return evil for evil that is just not the Christian way.” I said, “holy crap Dana, you are going to lose.” Dana stated that I did not have enough faith in her. I believe I made her mad.
Dana proved that you do not have to go negative to win an election. Congratulations to Dana, you did one heck of a job and deserves to be our next Corporation Commissioner.
Bob
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Gay Rights Backers File Lawsuits Challenging Prop 8
Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8
Lawyers for same-sex couples argue that the anti-gay marriage measure is an illegal constitutional revision. Backers of the measure attack the suits.
By Maura Dolan and Tami Abdollah
November 6, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.
The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said.
Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question.
"There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision," he said.
Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.
"The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it," she said. "Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote."
Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits "frivolous" and "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."
The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles also sued, and Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred filed a third suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple.
All the lawsuits cited the constitutional revision argument, and two of them asked the court to block Proposition 8 from taking effect while the legal cases were pending.
"The court must hold that California may not issue licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause," Allred said at a news conference.
A California Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court would act "as quickly as possible" on the challenges.
Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement decades.
"We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say we have a federal right to marry," Pizer said.
In addition to going to court, gay rights advocates sought to assure about 18,000 same-sex couples that their marriages will remain valid.
The groups cited comments by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said the initiative was not retroactive. If the marriages are challenged in court, that case too would go to the California Supreme Court. Experts differ on whether the law would protect the marriages.
The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation that provides strong legal protection from discrimination.
Dolan and Abdollah are Times staff writers.
Lawyers for same-sex couples argue that the anti-gay marriage measure is an illegal constitutional revision. Backers of the measure attack the suits.
By Maura Dolan and Tami Abdollah
November 6, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.
The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said.
Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question.
"There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision," he said.
Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.
"The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it," she said. "Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote."
Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits "frivolous" and "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."
The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles also sued, and Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred filed a third suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple.
All the lawsuits cited the constitutional revision argument, and two of them asked the court to block Proposition 8 from taking effect while the legal cases were pending.
"The court must hold that California may not issue licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause," Allred said at a news conference.
A California Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court would act "as quickly as possible" on the challenges.
Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement decades.
"We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say we have a federal right to marry," Pizer said.
In addition to going to court, gay rights advocates sought to assure about 18,000 same-sex couples that their marriages will remain valid.
The groups cited comments by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said the initiative was not retroactive. If the marriages are challenged in court, that case too would go to the California Supreme Court. Experts differ on whether the law would protect the marriages.
The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation that provides strong legal protection from discrimination.
Dolan and Abdollah are Times staff writers.
Frustrated Republican
Please read the below article concerning why Republicans are so frustrated. In my opinion not one single paid person that worked on McCain’s campaign should ever be allowed to work on another campaign. The message they sent was wrong. The message they sent was not sufficient. The press releases were not gravitating to the voter and sometimes came off as ill-prepared. The Republican Party needs new leadership that can utilize the internet. Leadership that can motivate the voter. We need leadership that is honest with the Republican Party. Obama the most liberal person in the senate made the election about failed policies of George Bush and took all the questions about his voting record away. They put McCain on the defense from day one. One issue that is important to 75% of the country is same sex marriage. McCain did not make that an issue. He could have won California if you would have defined Obama on this issue. The best thing McCain had going was Sarah Palin and now these goof offs connected to McCain campaign are bashing her. These guys should be taken out back to the wood shed and given 100 lashes and then kicked out of the party!
Bob
Swing Voters Don't Want Big Government
Survey results Barack Obama and the GOP would be wise to heed.
By PAT TOOMEY
Wall Street
:
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats won big on Tuesday night, but they should not mistake their victory for a big-government mandate. The evidence tells a very different story.
A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them.
Although currently held by Republican congressmen, all but one of these 12 districts we surveyed flipped to Democratic control Tuesday night. Collectively, President Bush carried these districts in 2004 with 53%. They are nearly evenly split in party affiliation: 40% Democratic, 37% Republican and 19% Independent. The poll surveyed 800 voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percentage points.
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district will always support universal health care, and Jeff Flake's Arizona district will always support less government. But the 12 districts we surveyed represent the political middle of the country, and in this cycle their partisan allegiances changed. The question is, have their opinions on the issues changed as well? The answer is emphatically no.
Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.
On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows.
When it comes to government spending, voters in these swing districts are fed up with the explosion of government under Republicans, and are no more inclined to swallow further spending increases from the Democrats. Over half of respondents think more than a quarter of federal spending in Washington is "wasteful," and 66% prefer candidates "who want to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come" to their own districts.
A large plurality of voters is dissatisfied with the government's bailout of the banking industry; even more are opposed to further action. Fifty-four percent think the "federal government is trying to do too many things that are better left to individuals, families and businesses," compared with 39% who think the government should do more.
Mr. Obama's opposition to domestic drilling is clearly out of step with mainstream America as well. Sixty-two percent of voters in swing districts would like to allow oil exploration in ANWR, and a dramatic 75% want to allow drilling for oil and natural gas off America's coastlines.
Of all Mr. Obama's plans, the most unpopular may be one of his first acts as president -- the signing of "card check" legislation. Perhaps he should know that a whopping 85% of voters in the districts that made him president oppose taking away the right of workers to have secret union ballots.
Celebrating in Chicago's Grant Park Tuesday night, the Democrats' victory comes with a very large caveat. Any attempt to jam higher taxes and spending and increased regulation down the throats of American voters will be met with opposition -- not just from the right, but also from the center of the electorate.
Mr. Obama is not the only person who should take notice of this poll. These numbers carry a powerful message for Republicans too. In the coming days you will hear many a pundit read the conservative movement's obituary. But voters have not rejected conservative ideals; they are disgusted with Republican politicians who govern like liberals.
This is pretty clear when you look at the Club's poll. Voters blame the GOP over the Democrats for "taxpayer bailouts for big corporations" by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. Forty-eight percent singled out the GOP as "the Party that gave us the Bridge to Nowhere," compared to 14% who blamed Democrats. More voters chose the Democratic Party as better for "promoting economic growth" than the GOP, and eight out of 10 voters agreed that "in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."
Much like the years following the 1974 midterm elections, Republican leaders will be tasked with rebuilding the GOP from the ground up. As dire as the future looks, economic conservatives should keep one thing in mind. When it comes to ideas, the American people are still on their side.
Mr. Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth.
Bob
Swing Voters Don't Want Big Government
Survey results Barack Obama and the GOP would be wise to heed.
By PAT TOOMEY
Wall Street
:
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats won big on Tuesday night, but they should not mistake their victory for a big-government mandate. The evidence tells a very different story.
A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them.
Although currently held by Republican congressmen, all but one of these 12 districts we surveyed flipped to Democratic control Tuesday night. Collectively, President Bush carried these districts in 2004 with 53%. They are nearly evenly split in party affiliation: 40% Democratic, 37% Republican and 19% Independent. The poll surveyed 800 voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percentage points.
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district will always support universal health care, and Jeff Flake's Arizona district will always support less government. But the 12 districts we surveyed represent the political middle of the country, and in this cycle their partisan allegiances changed. The question is, have their opinions on the issues changed as well? The answer is emphatically no.
Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.
On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows.
When it comes to government spending, voters in these swing districts are fed up with the explosion of government under Republicans, and are no more inclined to swallow further spending increases from the Democrats. Over half of respondents think more than a quarter of federal spending in Washington is "wasteful," and 66% prefer candidates "who want to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come" to their own districts.
A large plurality of voters is dissatisfied with the government's bailout of the banking industry; even more are opposed to further action. Fifty-four percent think the "federal government is trying to do too many things that are better left to individuals, families and businesses," compared with 39% who think the government should do more.
Mr. Obama's opposition to domestic drilling is clearly out of step with mainstream America as well. Sixty-two percent of voters in swing districts would like to allow oil exploration in ANWR, and a dramatic 75% want to allow drilling for oil and natural gas off America's coastlines.
Of all Mr. Obama's plans, the most unpopular may be one of his first acts as president -- the signing of "card check" legislation. Perhaps he should know that a whopping 85% of voters in the districts that made him president oppose taking away the right of workers to have secret union ballots.
Celebrating in Chicago's Grant Park Tuesday night, the Democrats' victory comes with a very large caveat. Any attempt to jam higher taxes and spending and increased regulation down the throats of American voters will be met with opposition -- not just from the right, but also from the center of the electorate.
Mr. Obama is not the only person who should take notice of this poll. These numbers carry a powerful message for Republicans too. In the coming days you will hear many a pundit read the conservative movement's obituary. But voters have not rejected conservative ideals; they are disgusted with Republican politicians who govern like liberals.
This is pretty clear when you look at the Club's poll. Voters blame the GOP over the Democrats for "taxpayer bailouts for big corporations" by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. Forty-eight percent singled out the GOP as "the Party that gave us the Bridge to Nowhere," compared to 14% who blamed Democrats. More voters chose the Democratic Party as better for "promoting economic growth" than the GOP, and eight out of 10 voters agreed that "in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."
Much like the years following the 1974 midterm elections, Republican leaders will be tasked with rebuilding the GOP from the ground up. As dire as the future looks, economic conservatives should keep one thing in mind. When it comes to ideas, the American people are still on their side.
Mr. Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tom Cole
For Immediate Release: Contact:
November 4, 2008 Ryan Owens -- 580.276.7530
COLE RE-ELECTED TO SERVE FOURTH TERM IN THE U.S. HOUSE
NORMAN, OK – The citizens of Oklahoma's Fourth Congressional District have re-elected Congressman Tom Cole by a wide margin. Cole received well over 60% of the vote and appeared well on his way to sweeping every county in the Fourth District.
Congressman Cole responded to the news of his re-election with the following comments:
"It is a tremendous honor to represent my fellow Oklahomans in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am humbled by their support and trust. When we started this campaign we knew that we would have a tough fight because of the toxic political environment we faced. Washington is broken and the American people are fed up with endless partisan bickering. We need to get our economy back on track, we need a common sense energy policy that weans us off foreign sources of oil and we need a united foreign policy that recognizes the world is still a very dangerous place. As I have for the past six years, I renew my pledge to the people of Oklahoma to work in a bi-partisan manner to find real solutions to the challenges facing our great country."
"Both of my opponents ran very good campaigns, worked hard and contributed ideas to the dialogue during this process. It's clear that Oklahomans' care about the future of this country as well as the promise and growth of our state. I look forward to representing the views, the values and the interests of my fellow Oklahomans over the next two years."
###
--
Ryan Owens
Campaign Manager
Tom Cole for Congress (OK-04)
November 4, 2008 Ryan Owens -- 580.276.7530
COLE RE-ELECTED TO SERVE FOURTH TERM IN THE U.S. HOUSE
NORMAN, OK – The citizens of Oklahoma's Fourth Congressional District have re-elected Congressman Tom Cole by a wide margin. Cole received well over 60% of the vote and appeared well on his way to sweeping every county in the Fourth District.
Congressman Cole responded to the news of his re-election with the following comments:
"It is a tremendous honor to represent my fellow Oklahomans in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am humbled by their support and trust. When we started this campaign we knew that we would have a tough fight because of the toxic political environment we faced. Washington is broken and the American people are fed up with endless partisan bickering. We need to get our economy back on track, we need a common sense energy policy that weans us off foreign sources of oil and we need a united foreign policy that recognizes the world is still a very dangerous place. As I have for the past six years, I renew my pledge to the people of Oklahoma to work in a bi-partisan manner to find real solutions to the challenges facing our great country."
"Both of my opponents ran very good campaigns, worked hard and contributed ideas to the dialogue during this process. It's clear that Oklahomans' care about the future of this country as well as the promise and growth of our state. I look forward to representing the views, the values and the interests of my fellow Oklahomans over the next two years."
###
--
Ryan Owens
Campaign Manager
Tom Cole for Congress (OK-04)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
