The King and I like the same girl.

[Okla-homey]

for Okie guvner.

http://www.jariaskins.com/?p=1468

and may I also say, Mary Fallin is a ditz, Randy Brogdon is a crack-pot, and Drew Edmundson is, well, the son of a former governor who is an empty suit.

[Viking Kitten]

I like her too. A lot. I think she'd make a great governor, but on a personal level she's top notch. Curious what makes you like her, Homey.

[XingTheRubicon]

Mrs. Lacewell?

[A Sooner in Texas]

Zing, Xing. :D

I wonder how many of the young 'uns will catch that?

[Leroy Lizard]

Switzer says she's as qualified as Boo Blake.

[delhalew]

I need to find out if she held in office in Duncan, where she is from. If so, has she taken part in helping Haliburton keep a long list of companies from setting up in the area. She's prolly too young to have had anything to do with Ford in the seventies, but there have been plenty since then.

[GKeeper316]

for Okie guvner.

http://www.jariaskins.com/?p=1468

and may I also say, Mary Fallin is a ditz, Randy Brogdon is a crack-pot, and Drew Edmundson is, well, the son of a former governor who is an empty suit.

i concur.

JARI, NOT MARY!

[Phil]

Calling Mary Fallin a ditz is an insult to ditzes. When she was in Congress, I would vote for the (literally) insane people that would run against her, much like I used to vote for the (literally) insane people (some of the same people, actually) that would run against Ernest Istook. Just couldn't stomach the thought of wasting my vote on either of them.

I'm likely to vote for Askins as well. We lawyer-types have got to make sure we've got a Dim as governor to counterbalance the kook 'Pubs in the legislature - including the chief kook, who lives like three blocks from me. Solving problems that don't exist and restricting my ability to earn money in the name of "reform" ain't right.

[SicEmBaylor]

For what it's worth, I support Brogdon. He's a model for what every Republican should be.

Fallin is nothing more than your typical mainstream country-club Republican who lacks a strong and well defined ideology. 9/10 you may agree with her but she's a squish and everything is open to compromise.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's amazing...all of my friends in college who became lawyers were hell-bent on tort reform as undergrads. Once they got their law degree they did a 180 so fast it'd make your head spin. Regardless of the merits of their POV, it reeks of self-interest over principle. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that so long as you admit it.

[Soonerus]

I am for Askins !!!

[picasso]

Meh, I'm leaning towards Edmondson.

[SicEmBaylor]

Edmonson is the worst of the lot.

Brogdon>Fallin>Askins>.................Edmonson

[picasso]

Edmonson is the worst of the lot.

Brogdon>Fallin>Askins>.................Edmonson

Says you, but you ****ing live in Texas.

[Soonerus]

I went to law school with Askins, so I am biased...

[SicEmBaylor]

Says you, but you ****ing live in Texas.

Actually, I live in Mississippi. I kept my Oklahoma voter registration though, but I'm not voting in Oklahoma anymore. I'm going to switch it over to MS next week.

[picasso]

Actually, I live in Mississippi. I kept my Oklahoma voter registration though, but I'm not voting in Oklahoma anymore. I'm going to switch it over to MS next week.

Even better. You can vote for Gailard Sartain.

[SicEmBaylor]

Even better. You can vote for Gailard Sartain.

I haven't decided whether I like Barbour or not yet.

[sooner59]

Isn't Brogdon the one who thought it would be a good idea for Oklahoma to form a militia? Yeah, I'll pass on that guy. I'm sure Timothy McVeigh would vote for him, though...you know...if he were alive and all.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Edmonson is the worst of the lot.

Brogdon>Fallin>Askins>.................EdmonsonBrogdon in the primary, if OK hasn't had it yet. Fallin in the general if she's the R nominee.

Switzer is apparently a democrat, for some reason...ugh!

[Pricetag]

I love the fact that Askins has said in her commericals that it's about being smart, not about talking tough. That's about all the other candidates for everything have done. I'm sure it will get her labelled as an elitist if she makes the primary, but it's good to hear it said.

The "Fallin Plan" cracks me up. A handful of points that every politician on both sides of the aisle promises he or she will deliver, packaged as some kind of personal creation from Mary. Good jorb!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I love the fact that Askins has said in her commericals that it's about being smart, not about talking tough. That's about all the other candidates for everything have done. I'm sure it will get her labelled as an elitist if she makes the primary, but it's good to hear it said.

The "Fallin Plan" cracks me up. A handful of points that every politician on both sides of the aisle promises he or she will deliver, packaged as some kind of personal creation from Mary. Good jorb!That Fallin! She's not as stupid as Sarah Palin, is she?

[Okla-homey]

I like her too. A lot. I think she'd make a great governor, but on a personal level she's top notch. Curious what makes you like her, Homey.

I got a chance to vist with her personally at a CASA function about a year ago. She and I look at a lot of things the same way. She's also originally a southern Oklahoman like me. She was also a fine judge.

[picasso]

I got a chance to vist with her personally at a CASA function about a year ago. She and I look at a lot of things the same way. She's also originally a southern Oklahoman like me. She was also a fine judge.

I got to talk to David Walters years ago and found he was a great guy. Not so much a great Guvnah.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Askins is the only one that I've personally met....She has been around SE Oklahoma a lot lately at all of the choctaw nation stuff..I'm pretty sure a lot of that has to do with the water selling stuff going on and her stance on it

[Condescending Sooner]

The fact that Switzer recommends her makes me not want to vote for her. His track record is not good.

[royalfan5]

The fact that Switzer recommends her makes me not want to vote for her. His track record is not good.

He even managed to back Tom Osborne's losing campaign for Governor in Nebraska.

[badger]

After the primary, I will probably vote for the Democrat. Please choose wisely, registered Democrats. I'll probably be voting for whoever you do, unless one of the Republicans really really impresses me before November.

I am more concerned with a local federal race though, as I have sworn off Sullivan in Congress, as have the Tea Partiers. Alas, he likely takes the primary, then just faces off against some indy candidate named Angela O'Dell... who?!

Other possibilities in the primary...

Craig Allen (http://www.craigallenforcongress.com/)
Nathan Dahm (http://www.nathandahm.com/)
Fran Moghaddam (ahhhhh!)
Kenneth Rice (http://www.kennethrice2010.com/)
Patrick K. Haworth (http://www.haworthforcongress.com/)

Of those other choices, Nathan Dahm and Kenneth Rice seem to have their stuff together the most. If anyone knows anything about the anti-Sullys, let me know who has the best chance of taking him down.

Just... don't mention Fran. I think she hears when her name actually gets uttered, tracks you down and then talks you to death. Hell, she's probably going to start posting here now :(

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The fact that Switzer recommends her makes me not want to vote for her. His track record is not good.DUH!

[Soonerus]

The fact that Switzer recommends her makes me not want to vote for her. His track record is not good.

His stumping for Brad Henry 8 years ago was recognized by most observers as one of the main reasons Henry got elected to his first term...pretty good track record...

[badger]

I once spoke with Barry Switzer about his stumping for candidates and he said that he isn't sure why people think it makes a difference that a football coach endorses a candidate, but they ask him for his support and to support them publicly, so he does.

I mean, if a candidate you liked asked for you to appear at a public event and tell people why you were voting for them, perhaps make an appearance in a mailer or write a letter to the editor, wouldn't you if you really, really liked the candidate and wanted them elected?

Even if I don't always support the candidate Barry does, I'm happy he does it. If it gets one more Oklahoman to the voting booth, it's worth it, especially during midterms when turnout is embarrassingly low.

[SicEmBaylor]

Even if I don't always support the candidate Barry does, I'm happy he does it. If it gets one more Oklahoman to the voting booth, it's worth it, especially during midterms when turnout is embarrassingly low.

Getting people to the polls is NOT a good thing. We need to keep more of them at home.

[badger]

Getting people to the polls is NOT a good thing. We need to keep more of them at home.

If people find reason to vote, they'll likely also find reason to learn more about the candidates and make an informed decision.

People that know nothing about a candidate other than Barry Switzer likes such-and-so likely won't vote at all. They'll likely show up at a political event with a football and a Sharpie :D

[NormanPride]

Ugh. I think that's the worst thing about you SicEm. Of all your faults and weird-isms that you readily divulge to the community here, it's your disdain for the common voter and desire to see their voice snuffed out that disgusts me the most.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ugh. I think that's the worst thing about you SicEm. Of all your faults and weird-isms that you readily divulge to the community here, it's your disdain for the common voter and desire to see their voice snuffed out that disgusts me the most.

See, the problem is I have had a lot of contact with the average voter over the years...a lot. I used to believe as you do that getting people to the polls and ensuring they do their civic duty was a good thing but then I faced reality.

All I ask is that an individual pass a basic 8th grade level civics test before being allowed to vote. This would ensure 1)They know how to read and 2)They're competent in the most basic fundamentals of American government.

[OUMallen]

See, the problem is I have had a lot of contact with the average voter over the years...a lot. I used to believe as you do that getting people to the polls and ensuring they do their civic duty was a good thing but then I faced reality.

All I ask is that an individual pass a basic 8th grade level civics test before being allowed to vote. This would ensure 1)They know how to read and 2)They're competent in the most basic fundamentals of American government.

What would that change? If they knew what "bicameral" meant, woiuld they somehow be more responsible in their voting? Now you have to be able to READ to vote? I mean, for all practical purposes, sure that makes sense. But as far as the RIGHT to vote, that's a dumb thing to say. You want to have a "standard" of who can vote? I like the SOUND of it, but it's impracticable. Because I thin only people that have IQs of 120+ and read the news at least once a week should vote.

What you REALLY want are sophisticated consumers of information that form their own opinions based on the balancing of: what's good for themselves v. what's good for the whole (even to their own detriment).


Ain't gonna happen.

[My Opinion Matters]

See, the problem is I have had a lot of contact with the average voter over the years...a lot. I used to believe as you do that getting people to the polls and ensuring they do their civic duty was a good thing but then I faced reality.

All I ask is that an individual pass a basic 8th grade level civics test before being allowed to vote. This would ensure 1)They know how to read and 2)They're competent in the most basic fundamentals of American government.

I thought intellectual elitism was strictly reserved for liberals?

[badger]

All I ask is that an individual pass a basic 8th grade level civics test before being allowed to vote. This would ensure 1)They know how to read and 2)They're competent in the most basic fundamentals of American government.


The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the United States.

Literacy tests were among those "Jim Crow laws" that this 1965 act outlawed, among other things.

[Rhino]

Askins is good people.

[Phil]

If they knew what "bicameral" meant

Why do you hate Nebraska?

[SicEmBaylor]

Literacy tests were among those "Jim Crow laws" that this 1965 act outlawed, among other things.

I know.

[SicEmBaylor]

What would that change? If they knew what "bicameral" meant, woiuld they somehow be more responsible in their voting? Now you have to be able to READ to vote? I mean, for all practical purposes, sure that makes sense. But as far as the RIGHT to vote, that's a dumb thing to say. You want to have a "standard" of who can vote? I like the SOUND of it, but it's impracticable. Because I thin only people that have IQs of 120+ and read the news at least once a week should vote.

What you REALLY want are sophisticated consumers of information that form their own opinions based on the balancing of: what's good for themselves v. what's good for the whole (even to their own detriment).


Ain't gonna happen.

What makes it impractical? We require that people be able to read and pass a test (two of them actually) just to drive, so why shouldn't we require a test for something infinitely more important? I'm under no illusion that everyone who passes the test will be an informed citizen, but it'll stop campaign activists from literally grabbing people off the street and putting them into a voting booth (I know it happens because I've done it and it isn't uncommon) or having every Tom and Harry Jackass from voting. The expectation is that if someone has to EARN the right to vote then they'll have a little more respect for the process.

[royalfan5]

What makes it impractical? We require that people be able to read and pass a test (two of them actually) just to drive, so why shouldn't we require a test for something infinitely more important? I'm under no illusion that everyone who passes the test will be an informed citizen, but it'll stop campaign activists from literally grabbing people off the street and putting them into a voting booth (I know it happens because I've done it and it isn't uncommon) or having every Tom and Harry Jackass from voting. The expectation is that if someone has to EARN the right to vote then they'll have a little more respect for the process.

You have to much faith that the power's that be will grade the tests unbiased and fairly rather than in their best interests.

[SicEmBaylor]

If people find reason to vote, they'll likely also find reason to learn more about the candidates and make an informed decision.

People that know nothing about a candidate other than Barry Switzer likes such-and-so likely won't vote at all. They'll likely show up at a political event with a football and a Sharpie :D

You'd think that but you'd be wrong. It doesn't happen.

Case and point (and this is one example of many)...when I ran for office we had a "candidate's day" where locals could come and meet the candidates for office or representatives from their staff. This one 20-something girl comes up to me and says verbatim, "I'm so totally going to like vote this year 'cuz P-Diddy like sooooooo stresses the importance of like voting." We talked some more and this girl had neither a clue who was running for what or what the differences in the offices are.

[My Opinion Matters]

Rights, by definition, are not earned.

[SicEmBaylor]

You have to much faith that the power's that be will grade the tests unbiased and fairly rather than in their best interests.

Now, this here is a good argument on why I'd be wrong. I'd assume the test would be multiple choice and pretty straightforward, but so were the Miami-Dade county ballots in 2000 and that clearly turned out just swell.

Spek.

[SicEmBaylor]

Rights, by definition, are not earned.

True. I say right, but it should be a privilege.

[My Opinion Matters]

True. I say right, but it should be a privilege.

Some Constitutionalist you are.

[NormanPride]

I don't care that uneducated people can vote. That's not the problem. The problem is that our society is creating uneducated people. Removing those peoples' right to vote is about as fundamentally un-American as you can get. Those people make up this nation just like you or I do.

[TUSooner]

I once apologized to SicEm for calling him a Nazi. I hereby withdraw my apology.

[badger]

ehhhh... another friday in political discussion paradise :P

can't we all just get along? As Georgie W. Bush once said, "If you plan to vote for me, I thank you. If you plan to vote for my opponent... please only vote once."

:D i probably messed that quote up, but it was at the end of a gore/bush debate in 2000.

[SicEmBaylor]

Some Constitutionalist you are.

REALLY? Aside from amendments (14, 15, 19, 24, 26) saying what criteria can't be used to decide who is barred from voting, the Constitution NEVER explicitly grants the right to vote to anyone.

Some Constitutionalist you are.

[My Opinion Matters]

REALLY? Aside from amendments (14, 15, 19, 24, 26) saying what criteria can't be used to decide who is barred from voting, the Constitution NEVER explicitly grants the right to vote to anyone.

Some Constitutionalist you are.

The Constitution doesn't grant me the right to breathe either. ZOMG!

[SicEmBaylor]

The Constitution doesn't grant me the right to breathe either. ZOMG!

Good point. Taking this ridiculous example further...

Your right to breathe isn't mentioned in the Constitution therefore it's a right reserved to YOU or the STATE. Absent the individual state passing legislation dealing with your right to breathe, it's a right reserved to you.

[NormanPride]

This is asinine. SicEm, you say that the right to vote is not expressly guaranteed by the Constitution. That's fine. But the measures you wish to implement ARE expressly disallowed.

[Condescending Sooner]

His stumping for Brad Henry 8 years ago was recognized by most observers as one of the main reasons Henry got elected to his first term...pretty good track record...

Yeah, and we are still paying for that.

[My Opinion Matters]

It's ironic (yes,that is the correct word for this particular situation) that our most pathologically devoted small-government Constitutional scholar seems to be forgetting that the Constituion was designed to protect our rights, not grant them.

[Half a Hundred]

For what it's worth, I support Brogdon. He's a model for what every Republican should be.

Fallin is nothing more than your typical mainstream country-club Republican who lacks a strong and well defined ideology. 9/10 you may agree with her but she's a squish and everything is open to compromise.

And this is a bad thing because...? Ideology simply convinces you that your terrible decision was the right one. It's the worst thing about politics, for either side.


It's amazing...all of my friends in college who became lawyers were hell-bent on tort reform as undergrads. Once they got their law degree they did a 180 so fast it'd make your head spin. Regardless of the merits of their POV, it reeks of self-interest over principle. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that so long as you admit it.

What about the principle "plaintiffs have rights to just compensation for their harm, too?" I hope you don't think tort reform advocates are doing it solely out of "principle." That's the most laughable proposition I could even imagine.

Politics isn't an ideological battleground. It's a negotiating table, with everyone trying to figure out who gets what. It's the height of silliness to think of it as anything more.

[Okla-homey]

REALLY? Aside from amendments (14, 15, 19, 24, 26) saying what criteria can't be used to decide who is barred from voting, the Constitution NEVER explicitly grants the right to vote to anyone.

Some Constitutionalist you are.

Your wrong. As usual. The unamended Constititution grants the right to vote for members of the US House of Representatives to the folks (Art I, Sec. 2).

[badger]

Is this thread too long gone to still ask for voting advice? The primary's next Tuesday and I still haven't received SoonerFans.com's endorsements on the candidates.

Do I need to start a poll?

[My Opinion Matters]

John Locke, people. He wasn't just the smoke monster on Lost.

[Okla-homey]

It's amazing...all of my friends in college who became lawyers were hell-bent on tort reform as undergrads. Once they got their law degree they did a 180 so fast it'd make your head spin. Regardless of the merits of their POV, it reeks of self-interest over principle. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that so long as you admit it.

Is the VII Amendment so complex you have difficulty understanding it? Maybe if you had graduated from college they would have covered it in one of your classes. :rolleyes:

[badger]

Is this thread too long gone to still ask for voting advice? The primary's next Tuesday and I still haven't received SoonerFans.com's endorsements on the candidates.

Do I need to start a poll?

I'm gonna start a poll if nobody else does... sometime. Before Tuesday. ish.

[NormanPride]

Nobody cares, hon. :( It's not about who to vote for anymore. Instead we all focus on who not to vote for.

[Pricetag]

Where do we go to see the complete ballot for our district?

[Half a Hundred]

Nobody cares, hon. :( It's not about who to vote for anymore. Instead we all focus on who not to vote for.

See above note re: ideology. When it's impossible to get elected on a platform of "I have years of experience and many successes in negotiation, and will work tirelessly to listen to you, and make sure that your interests and the interests of the entire state are represented to the best of my abilities," and instead comes down to the manipulation of emotions (fear and anger being the strongest), you're just not going to have a candidate elected on the merits. This is further exacerbated by our electoral system.

[Pricetag]

I've decided not to vote for anyone who has a commercial where a sarcastic tone is used, or where some kind of goofy graphics or other distractions are utilized. To their credit, none of the gubernatorial candidates have done it as far as I have seen.

[My Opinion Matters]

I've decided not to vote for anyone who has a commercial where a sarcastic tone is used, or where some kind of goofy graphics or other distractions are utilized. To their credit, none of the gubernatorial candidates have done it as far as I have seen.

I don't pay much attention to these things, but this one did catch my attention. "Compromise" is a dirty word now, apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXDjTtdfwnI

[NormanPride]

Dan Boren's commercial: "Did you know the opponent said America should have a health system like France? France!"

[Okla-homey]

See above note re: ideology. When it's impossible to get elected on a platform of "I have years of experience and many successes in negotiation, and will work tirelessly to listen to you, and make sure that your interests and the interests of the entire state are represented to the best of my abilities," and instead comes down to the manipulation of emotions (fear and anger being the strongest), you're just not going to have a candidate elected on the merits. This is further exacerbated by our electoral system.

I am particularly anguished by the current crop of state candidates all claiming to be all constitution-y and promising to deep-six any bill that is "unconstitutional."

This is chiefly because I could get three legitimate constitutional scholars in a room, put an issue to them, and they would have 5 different opinions on its constitutionality.

The Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation. That's why the Bible has a plethora of denominational interpreters, all of which think they have a lock on biblical truth. Ditto the Constitution, except that instead of denominational interpreters, we have courts that do the interpretation.

This Randy Brogdon guy, an air conditioner repair man by profession, is one of the worst of the Constitution beaters.

[Pricetag]

Yep. What you're describing is kinda like "maverick" on a state level. It's being tossed around so much, people have lost any idea of what it actually means, if they ever did have a clue, which I suspect they didn't.

[TUSooner]

I am particularly anguished by the current crop of state candidates all claiming to be all constitution-y and promising to deep-six any bill that is "unconstitutional."

This is chiefly because I could get three legitimate constitutional scholars in a room, put an issue to them, and they would have 5 different opinions on its constitutionality.

The Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation. That's why the Bible has a plethora of denominational interpreters, all of which think they have a lock on biblical truth. Ditto the Constitution, except that instead of denominational interpreters, we have courts that do the interpretation....

All you so-called Constitutional purists need to read this again. So do all Bible Literalistos, come to think of it. You don't have to think Homey has all the answers to realize that the feller does hit the dang nail right on the head more often than not. He's done so here.

Ideological absolutes without pragmatic application are worse than useless, they are dangerous.

[badger]

Dan Boren's commercial: "Did you know the opponent said America should have a health system like France? France!"

Ahhh! Stop pointing your hunting rifle at me, Dan!

Oh no! Dan in a hunting vest!

Dan is now approving this message while cocking the gun! I'm going to die, aren't I? :eek:

:D happy friday everyone

[GKeeper316]

Ugh. I think that's the worst thing about you SicEm. Of all your faults and weird-isms that you readily divulge to the community here, it's your disdain for the common voter and desire to see their voice snuffed out that disgusts me the most.

the best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter. and, especially one at a Democrat convention.

[NormanPride]

Half the people that rail against the "average voter" are, in themselves, average voters.

[Viking Kitten]

and, especially one at a Democrat convention.

Do you bore everyone you talk to or is it just people on the Internet?

[Half a Hundred]

I am particularly anguished by the current crop of state candidates all claiming to be all constitution-y and promising to deep-six any bill that is "unconstitutional."

This is chiefly because I could get three legitimate constitutional scholars in a room, put an issue to them, and they would have 5 different opinions on its constitutionality.

The Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation. That's why the Bible has a plethora of denominational interpreters, all of which think they have a lock on biblical truth. Ditto the Constitution, except that instead of denominational interpreters, we have courts that do the interpretation.

This Randy Brogdon guy, an air conditioner repair man by profession, is one of the worst of the Constitution beaters.

The funniest thing about that is that this was the precise reason people accepted the adoption of judicial review, Andrew Jackson's objections notwithstanding. The common law was the only legal institution in the country with enough permanence that constitutional interpretation would remain somewhat consistent, even as administrations and legislatures changed.

You also hint at the heart of the ideological bent to politics this day: the decline of American public religion. As the influence of Mainline Protestantism (that is, Methodism, Congregationalism, Lutheranism and Presbyterianism) has declined over the past few decades, and its societal values along with it (tolerance, temperance, Protestant work ethic, social gospel), it left a vacuum in the public discourse. At that time, people expressed their beliefs in different ways, but it was understood what moral understandings constituted "being an American."

However, for a plethora of reasons, this began to wane. Mainline Protestant attendance began to plunge, and common acceptance of its values began to fade. Instead of tolerance, you now have factionalism and loyalty. Instead of temperance, you have self-expression and vanity. Instead of the Protestant work ethic, you have cut-throat competition and the drive for a quick buck. And of course, instead of the social gospel, you have tax revolts and "raising oneself by his own bootstraps".

All of these are religious and moral ideas, and not political ones, because politics is a simple question of who gets what, and not why it is right or wrong that they get what they do. Not only that, the questions that these ideas raise are very difficult ones.

Some have turned to religious fundamentalism to get the answers to these questions; they represent one faction. Some have turned to the rectification of inequality in this society by any means necessary as their divine calling, they represent another faction. Some have turned to personal gain at the expense of all others as their raison d'etre, they represent a fairly reprehensible faction. And so on and so forth.

However, all of these have begun to adopt a new form of religious belief in the pursuit of these goals: the divinity of America's founding, and the infallibility of the Constitution. Ideas can't just be good ideas, they have to be "constitutional." Likewise, we can't just look to the needs of society as it exists currently, we have to ask "what the Framers would have done." This is not the sort of behavior associated with making policy decisions; this is appealing to the gods.

Seventy-five years ago, in the midst of the Depression, no one harped inconsolably about the "Founding Fathers' intent" when the constitutionality of New Deal legislation was in dispute. God was perfect, the Framers men who had a good idea that we have made better, and can make better. Instead, the question was "by this agreement we all have amongst ourselves as Americans, do we need to change this agreement before the proposed legislation can go through?"

However, the American civil religion, mostly from Cold War-era efforts, has become much more pervasive since then. And when politics becomes religious, as it often can in a democratic society, ideology flourishes, because you're no longer trying to decide "who gets what", but rather doing God's will, or "fulfilling America's promise," or "securing the blessings of liberty," or what have you.

Sadly, it seems like 1852 all over again, in all the wrong ways.

[My Opinion Matters]

Half A Hundred wins the essay contest.

[Frozen Sooner]

I am particularly anguished by the current crop of state candidates all claiming to be all constitution-y and promising to deep-six any bill that is "unconstitutional."

This is chiefly because I could get three legitimate constitutional scholars in a room, put an issue to them, and they would have 5 different opinions on its constitutionality.

The Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation. That's why the Bible has a plethora of denominational interpreters, all of which think they have a lock on biblical truth. Ditto the Constitution, except that instead of denominational interpreters, we have courts that do the interpretation.

This Randy Brogdon guy, an air conditioner repair man by profession, is one of the worst of the Constitution beaters.


the best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an SO poster.

Got that right.

[badger]

This discussion helps me realize something - primaries are early, rushed and I feel totally unprepared to vote in Tuesday's primary... and I thought presidential primaries were insanely early.

I suppose I could just avoid feeling obligated to vote in em by registering "independent..."

[Okla-homey]

This discussion helps me realize something - primaries are early, rushed and I feel totally unprepared to vote in Tuesday's primary... and I thought presidential primaries were insanely early.

I suppose I could just avoid feeling obligated to vote in em by registering "independent..."

Me? I'm a registered 'Pub but I can't vote for my pick for Okie Gov unless she beats Drew "Sue Big Chicken and Lose" Edmondson on Tuesday.

I think I'll vote for the Ditz because Brogdon is a crack-pot, John Bircher, tin-foil hat wearing, demagogue who styles himself as the modern incarnation of Alfalfa Bill (but without the folksy appeal).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Me? I'm a registered 'Pub but I can't vote for my pick for Okie Gov unless she beats Drew "Sue Big Chicken and Lose" Edmondson on Tuesday.

I think I'll vote for the Ditz because Brogdon is a crack-pot, John Bircher, tin-foil hat wearing, demagogue who styles himself as the modern incarnation of Alfalfa Bill (but without the folksy appeal).You're a RINO on several issues you've discussed on this board. Might as well not vote in the primary.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Do you bore everyone you talk to or is it just people on the Internet?My condolences for your D-party membership.

[Half a Hundred]

Do you bore everyone you talk to or is it just people on the Internet?

When your idea of "entertainment" is to continually spew the same predictable talking points over and over, I think you can imagine what the answer to this question is.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A thread about voting for a Democrat in 2010 is actually shameful. One would think that after experiencing Democrat punishment since the '06 election, that NOBODY would neither consider running as a democrat, nor certainly not voting for one of them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When your idea of "entertainment" is to continually spew the same predictable talking points over and over, I think you can imagine what the answer to this question is.So, didja vote for Gov. Christie, there in NJ? haha

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When your idea of "entertainment" is to continually spew the same predictable talking points over and over, I think you can imagine what the answer to this question is.When your idea of a good decision is voting for a fool Democrat, you deserve admonishment.

[Half a Hundred]

So, didja vote for Gov. Christie, there in NJ? haha

Not a resident, so no, I didn't have that distinct "pleasure." BTW did you see him massively expand the size of government by taking over Atlantic City?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

BTW did you see him massively expand the size of government by taking over Atlantic City?No, tell us about it.

[Leroy Lizard]

All you so-called Constitutional purists need to read this again. So do all Bible Literalistos, come to think of it. You don't have to think Homey has all the answers to realize that the feller does hit the dang nail right on the head more often than not. He's done so here.

Ideological absolutes without pragmatic application are worse than useless, they are dangerous.

In other words, I don't like what the Constitution says, so I think it's open to interpretation.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In other words, I don't like what the Constitution says, so I think it's open to interpretation.Ugly, ain't it?

[TUSooner]

In other words, I don't like what the Constitution says, so I think it's open to interpretation.

Are you playing dumb or really dumb?

[Leroy Lizard]

Are you playing dumb or really dumb?

It's the truth.

[picasso]

His stumping for Brad Henry 8 years ago was recognized by most observers as one of the main reasons Henry got elected to his first term...pretty good track record...


no...
http://www.speakersinarkansas.com/image/Gary-Richardson-Speaker.jpg
this guy is the main reason.

[badger]

this guy is the main reason.

People wanted a free I-44, I guess

[Okla-homey]

You're a RINO on several issues you've discussed on this board. Might as well not vote in the primary.

Ok. Let me get this straight. I'm a "Republican In Name Only" because, after personally becoming informed on five hot-button issues*, and deciding for myself one way or the other, my considered position differs from what some other members of my party feel is right. Ergo, I should not vote in my party's primary?

How in the wide, wide, world of sports does that make any sense?

Where is this list of those Okie 'Pubs ideologically pure enough to vote in the Okie GOP primary?

* I'm opposed to the death penalty and so-called tort reform which is actually an unconstitutional assault on the Seventh Amendment, and I favor reasonable immigration reform, reform of our failed illegal drug policy and homosexual civil marriage.

[Scott D]

Ok. Let me get this straight. I'm a "Republican In Name Only" because, after personally becoming informed on five hot-button issues*, and deciding for myself one way or the other, my considered position differs from what some other members of my party feel is right. Ergo, I should not vote in my party's primary?

How in the wide, wide, world of sports does that make any sense?

Where is this list of those Okie 'Pubs ideologically pure enough to vote in the Okie GOP primary?

* I'm opposed to the death penalty and so-called tort reform which is actually an unconstitutional assault on the Seventh Amendment, and I favor reasonable immigration reform, reform of our failed illegal drug policy and homosexual civil marriage.

Homey, you and I don't agree on more than a few things, but I implore you to consider the track record of the source of the quote to which you replied to here and the little fantasy land that poster lives in.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, you and I don't agree on more than a few things, but I implore you to consider the track record of the source of the quote to which you replied to here and the little fantasy land that poster lives in.

Thanks Scott. I appreciate it. But this notion that only certain people are ideologically "pure" enough to vote in a party primary smacks of Third Reich-iness and frankly, that kind of ideological zeal can be dangerous.

It's also disingenuois in the final analysis. Particularly since, in my experience, a great number of ideologues, both left and right, voice rock-ribbed commitment to abstract principles, but when their a$$, or someone they love is in a pinch, they scream for MERCY! We call that "hypocrisy," or maybe "narcissism. "

Finally, it's intellectually lazy to go all-in on a party line. I'd wager there are very few people in either of the two major parties who agree with everything in their party's platform if they really think about it. IMHO, it's better to take the time to inform yourself, decide where you stand, and have the moral courage to tell the emperor he's nekkid if you think so.

[delhalew]

All you so-called Constitutional purists need to read this again. So do all Bible Literalistos, come to think of it. You don't have to think Homey has all the answers to realize that the feller does hit the dang nail right on the head more often than not. He's done so here.

Ideological absolutes without pragmatic application are worse than useless, they are dangerous.

I don't need to read it again. It's the same thing that you always hear from lawyers and other "I have to be the smartest guy in the room" types. The Constitution is not hard to understand. If legislation today was written in the same language, lawyers would be out of a job when it comes to governance.

The only ideology that means anything to me is that of individual freedoms that was so prevalent in that Constitution you guys get so sick of hearing about.

[picasso]

Thanks Scott. I appreciate it. But this notion that only certain people are ideologically "pure" enough to vote in a party primary smacks of Third Reich-iness and frankly, that kind of ideological zeal can be dangerous.

It's also disingenuois in the final analysis. Particularly since, in my experience, a great number of ideologues, both left and right, voice rock-ribbed commitment to abstract principles, but when their a$$, or someone they love is in a pinch, they scream for MERCY! We call that "hypocrisy," or maybe "narcissism. "

Finally, it's intellectually lazy to go all-in on a party line. I'd wager there are very few people in either of the two major parties who agree with everything in their party's platform if they really think about it. IMHO, it's better to take the time to inform yourself, decide where you stand, and have the moral courage to tell the emperor he's nekkid if you think so.

I'm a Pub and I've voted for 2 different Democrats. Wonder if any Dems on this board have done the same?
Doubt it.

[picasso]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

If I remember correctly Switzer has backed members of both parties in the past depending on who he liked better at the time. I think it has mainly been dems, but he's not too far in either direction so he manages to maintain some centrist views. Either way it's not like there are ever any ultra-liberals with a chance to win in OK anyway.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't need to read it again. It's the same thing that you always hear from lawyers and other "I have to be the smartest guy in the room" types. The Constitution is not hard to understand. If legislation today was written in the same language, lawyers would be out of a job when it comes to governance.

The only ideology that means anything to me is that of individual freedoms that was so prevalent in that Constitution you guys get so sick of hearing about.ENCORE

[tommieharris91]

I don't need to read it again. It's the same thing that you always hear from lawyers and other "I have to be the smartest guy in the room" types. The Constitution is not hard to understand. If legislation today was written in the same language, lawyers would be out of a job when it comes to governance.

The only ideology that means anything to me is that of individual freedoms that was so prevalent in that Constitution you guys get so sick of hearing about.

If you understood the Constitution, you would know that, as long as court cases are heard, lawyers will never be out of work.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ok. Let me get this straight. I'm a "Republican In Name Only" because, after personally becoming informed on five hot-button issues*, and deciding for myself one way or the other, my considered position differs from what some other members of my party feel is right. Ergo, I should not vote in my party's primary?

How in the wide, wide, world of sports does that make any sense?

Where is this list of those Okie 'Pubs ideologically pure enough to vote in the Okie GOP primary?

* I'm opposed to the death penalty and so-called tort reform which is actually an unconstitutional assault on the Seventh Amendment, and I favor reasonable immigration reform, reform of our failed illegal drug policy and homosexual civil marriage. Your positions are in line with the Democrats' beliefs. If you were honest with yourself, you should re-register. Apology given if you already are/have become a democrat...and, condolences, of course.

[SicEmBaylor]

Your positions are in line with the Democrats' beliefs. If you were honest with yourself, you should re-register. Apology given if you already are/have become a democrat...and, condolences, of course.

He's not a liberal; he's just not a small-government/liberty-oriented conservative. He's a right-wing nationalist who is comfortable with the exercise of government power when it suits his interests and he believes in an imperialist foreign policy. It isn't anymore complicated than that.

[delhalew]

If you understood the Constitution, you would know that, as long as court cases are heard, lawyers will never be out of work.

An overstatement to be sure. The point is, you don't need a lawyer to explain the Constitution to you. Take any modern 2500 page bill on the other hand...this is because lawyers run the entire process. Writing legislation, passing legislation, signing legislation, implementing legislation, and of course the one place they should be involved in the process. This is why the government is a failure. A bunch of lawyers fellating themselves, in a complete absence of statesmen and patriots.

[Okla-homey]

I don't need to read it again. It's the same thing that you always hear from lawyers and other "I have to be the smartest guy in the room" types. The Constitution is not hard to understand. If legislation today was written in the same language, lawyers would be out of a job when it comes to governance.

The only ideology that means anything to me is that of individual freedoms that was so prevalent in that Constitution you guys get so sick of hearing about.

At the risk of being further pilloried as a know-it-all in this, or any other area, suffice to say it is almost impossible to draft statutes that are fully comprehendible by the Average Joe. Statutory construction is an art. The complexity of our society and the myriad laws already on the books demand that laws be carefully drafted with oodles of caveats, exceptions and "but fors." i.e. "Legalese" for lack of a better word.

Joe may think he can read a statute and understand it, but most statutes must be read with all the related statutes in the same Title and neighboring Titles and usually more importantly, the case law interpreting those statutes. The language of the statute doesn't matter nearly as much as the meaning ascribed to that language by the courts.

Put another way, if I were paid to give a legal opinion on a set of facts and all I did was quote the pertinent statutes, I'd only be about a third finished. And guilty of professional malpractice.

[Okla-homey]

An overstatement to be sure. The point is, you don't need a lawyer to explain the Constitution to you. Take any modern 2500 page bill on the other hand...this is because lawyers run the entire process. Writing legislation, passing legislation, signing legislation, implementing legislation, and of course the one place they should be involved in the process. This is why the government is a failure. A bunch of lawyers fellating themselves, in a complete absence of statesmen and patriots.

When you need wiring, you call an electrician right? When you need plumbing, you call a plumber right? So why are lawyers being involved in making laws bad? srsly?

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm a Pub and I've voted for 2 different Democrats. Wonder if any Dems on this board have done the same?
Doubt it.

Voted for 2 different Democrats? Sure, many times over. ;)

Lisa Murkowski and a couple of state house elections.

[Leroy Lizard]

Back to the original point: If I need advice on coaching a football team*, I'll ask Switzer. If I need advice on voting, he'd be the last person I would ask.

* And that does not extend to advice on hiring decisions.

[SicEmBaylor]

There's nothing wrong with voting Democrat depending on who it is. I've voted for several Democrats in the past. Last election, I supported Sam Houston for Texas Supreme Court.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There's nothing wrong with voting Democrat depending on who it is. I've voted for several Democrats in the past. Last election, I supported Sam Houston for Texas Supreme Court."I weep for the Republic"-Sicem TooflessBears

[delhalew]

When you need wiring, you call an electrician right? When you need plumbing, you call a plumber right? So why are lawyers being involved in making laws bad? srsly?

I fully understand your above point, and really it's nothing personal. My point is, like most things, it has evolved into a cumbersome, masturbatory process. The original drafters of our laws were a collection of diplomats, tradesmen, and farmers. I simply long for a time when legislatures read and understood the bills they passed, and citizens took the time to know how they were being represented.

[GottaHavePride]

A thread about voting for a Democrat in 2010 is actually shameful. One would think that after experiencing Democrat punishment since the '06 election, that NOBODY would neither consider running as a democrat, nor certainly not voting for one of them.


You realize, of course, that there are so many negatives in that sentence that you just said everybody should run as a Democrat and vote for them, right?

[Half a Hundred]

At the risk of being further pilloried as a know-it-all in this, or any other area, suffice to say it is almost impossible to draft statutes that are fully comprehendible by the Average Joe. Statutory construction is an art. The complexity of our society and the myriad laws already on the books demand that laws be carefully drafted with oodles of caveats, exceptions and "but fors." i.e. "Legalese" for lack of a better word.

Joe may think he can read a statute and understand it, but most statutes must be read with all the related statutes in the same Title and neighboring Titles and usually more importantly, the case law interpreting those statutes. The language of the statute doesn't matter nearly as much as the meaning ascribed to that language by the courts.

Put another way, if I were paid to give a legal opinion on a set of facts and all I did was quote the pertinent statutes, I'd only be about a third finished. And guilty of professional malpractice.

I see you took "Getting to Maybe" to heart :D

[Okla-homey]

I fully understand your above point, and really it's nothing personal. My point is, like most things, it has evolved into a cumbersome, masturbatory process. The original drafters of our laws were a collection of diplomats, tradesmen, and farmers. I simply long for a time when legislatures read and understood the bills they passed, and citizens took the time to know how they were being represented.

And I see your point. But please don't forget, when the Republic was founded, the governing class of folks were generally the propertied upper-class. And most folks couldn't vote. You had to be white, male, 21 and quite often, a landowner. Therefore, given laws were enacted to benefit the landed gentry who voted and tended to be educated, it's not surprising those voters were better informed.

As to some of the Founders being farmers? Well, actually plantation owners. I think Washington himself had something like 20,000 acres under cultivation. Ditto Jefferson and James Madison. Jefferson and Madison were also country lawyers. John Adams didn't own a plantation, but he had a successful law practice and was definitely a member of the Massachusetts upper class.

All that to say, make no mistake, the Constitution was first and foremost, a compromise between disparate sections of the country enacted to establish the world's first economic union between several formerly soveriegn trading partners we now call "states." The goal was to benefit the merchants, shipping magnates, manufacturers and plantationers who dwelled in those states.

And as our culture and business enterprise has become exponentially more complex than the 18th century, is it really suprising we now have a web of laws governing just about every area of our lives?

[Scott D]

You realize, of course, that there are so many negatives in that sentence that you just said everybody should run as a Democrat and vote for them, right?

then the entire world could be out to get him instead of just the few ;)

[Scott D]

He's not a liberal; he's just not a small-government/liberty-oriented conservative. He's a right-wing nationalist who is comfortable with the exercise of government power when it suits his interests and he believes in an imperialist foreign policy. It isn't anymore complicated than that.

you realize that you're trying to state a position to a parrot, right?

[Okla-homey]

He's not a liberal; he's just not a small-government/liberty-oriented conservative. He's a right-wing nationalist who is comfortable with the exercise of government power when it suits his interests and he believes in an imperialist foreign policy. It isn't anymore complicated than that.

Hmm. Let's see. Not liberty oriented? Well sir, I don't care what you do with another consenting adult. Nor do I care what you smoke or shoot into your veins. I also don't think the government should either. Small government? Absolutely for that, but not to small to keep an eye on radicals like you. ;)

As to exercise of government power when it suits my interests? Sure. Didn't you say that's okay as long as your're up-front about it? As to being a righty nationalist? Absolutely. I've spent time on every continent but Antarctica and I've never found a place worthy of having its national interests placed above ours. Australia was close, but not quite. As to "imperialist foreign policy", Sic, the world is a tiny place. We're all interconnected. It is totally impractical to think the US can pursue isolationist policies and maintain our way of life.

[SoonerStormchaser]

While most Okie Dems are nothing more than confused Repubs, I'm having a hard time believing she wouldn't tote the Dem party line once she gets into office...just like Henry did after he got in. Looking at her site, it looks like a bunch of sunshine pumping with little to no explaining of her positions on issues.

[GKeeper316]

While most Okie Dems are nothing more than confused Repubs, I'm having a hard time believing she wouldn't tote the Dem party line once she gets into office...just like Henry did after he got in. Looking at her site, it looks like a bunch of sunshine pumping with little to no explaining of her positions on issues.

send her an email. ask her questions.

so far she's the only gubernatorial candidate with any actual plans for fixing the state's budget.

fallin, brogdon and edmondson have basically said the same stuff (it needs fixin) with no actual idea of how to go about it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

While most Okie Dems are nothing more than confused Repubs, I'm having a hard time believing she wouldn't tote the Dem party line once she gets into office...just like Henry did after he got in. .All the dems always vote the party line... ALWAYS!(except in congress when given permission to vote conservative by the dem party leaders, when they already have enough votes to ef-up America on whatever issue or bill is being voted on)

[TUSooner]

Just a word for the bricky noggins who think the Constitution is cut and dried. Read the thing, then tell me it doesn't require some sort of interpretation to apply it to a particular situation 220 years after it was written. Even Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia KNOW that it requires interpretation. Add John Marshall to the list of "interpreters" while you are at it. It's just a matter of what kind of interpretation. I favor the one that stays as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible, in the context of which it is written, like Scalia. But for anyone to say that
"it's plain" in its application to today's world (except in very rare instances) is astonishingly ignorant. In fact, it's willful stupidity.

[Frozen Sooner]

Just a word for the bricky noggins who think the Constitution is cut and dried. Read the thing, then tell me it doesn't require some sort of interpretation to apply it to a particular situation 220 years after it was written. Even Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia KNOW that it requires interpretation. Add John Marshall to the list of "interpreters" while you are at it. It's just a matter of what kind of interpretation. I favor the one that stays as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible, in the context of which it is written, like Scalia. But for anyone to say that
"it's plain" in its application to today's world (except in very rare instances) is astonishingly ignorant. In fact, it's willful stupidity.

Meh. Scalia's no more a literalist than anyone anymore, now that he's embraced substantive due process. Not really a problem for me-I even like the result he got when he did so. He just gets all the press because he writes entertaining stuff. Thomas looks to be the only true literalist on the Court anymore.

[Half a Hundred]

Meh. Scalia's no more a literalist than anyone anymore, now that he's embraced substantive due process. Not really a problem for me-I even like the result he got when he did so. He just gets all the press because he writes entertaining stuff. Thomas looks to be the only true literalist on the Court anymore.

Sorry, I would have read this post, but I already read the brief and decided to sleep through it instead.

[JohnnyMack]

I think I'll vote for the Ditz because Brogdon is a crack-pot, John Bircher, tin-foil hat wearing, demagogue who styles himself as the modern incarnation of Alfalfa Bill (but without the folksy appeal).

Randy Brogdon is definitely a scary candidate. He's conveniently adopted the constitutionalist mantra all of a sudden and the suburban Tulsa sheep are lapping it up. Problem is this guy is about as far away from being a constitutionalist as is possible.

[stoopified]

Why do you hate Nebraska?Wouldn't that be bikernel? :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Sorry, I would have read this post, but I already read the brief and decided to sleep through it instead.

Heh.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hmm. Let's see. Not liberty oriented? Well sir, I don't care what you do with another consenting adult. Nor do I care what you smoke or shoot into your veins. I also don't think the government should either. Small government? Absolutely for that, but not to small to keep an eye on radicals like you. ;)

As to exercise of government power when it suits my interests? Sure. Didn't you say that's okay as long as your're up-front about it? As to being a righty nationalist? Absolutely. I've spent time on every continent but Antarctica and I've never found a place worthy of having its national interests placed above ours. Australia was close, but not quite. As to "imperialist foreign policy", Sic, the world is a tiny place. We're all interconnected. It is totally impractical to think the US can pursue isolationist policies and maintain our way of life.

Now, I can respect that. I don't agree of course, but I respect that you're being upfront.

[SicEmBaylor]

While most Okie Dems are nothing more than confused Repubs, I'm having a hard time believing she wouldn't tote the Dem party line once she gets into office...just like Henry did after he got in. Looking at her site, it looks like a bunch of sunshine pumping with little to no explaining of her positions on issues.

She's running for Governor, once she's elected she will be the party line as far as the state party is concerned. I doubt she'd be a radical leftist once elected. I don't support her at all, but I don't think she's been a successful politician to this point by going too far off the Oklahoma values reservation (no pun intended).

[SicEmBaylor]

Just a word for the bricky noggins who think the Constitution is cut and dried. Read the thing, then tell me it doesn't require some sort of interpretation to apply it to a particular situation 220 years after it was written. Even Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia KNOW that it requires interpretation. Add John Marshall to the list of "interpreters" while you are at it. It's just a matter of what kind of interpretation. I favor the one that stays as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible, in the context of which it is written, like Scalia. But for anyone to say that
"it's plain" in its application to today's world (except in very rare instances) is astonishingly ignorant. In fact, it's willful stupidity.

It's more cut and dry than the Federal courts have made it over the years. You can't possibly be naive enough to claim that the bias of judges hasn't made constitutional law unnecessarily complex and interpretation of the constitution totally convoluted.

In any case, it's ridiculous that one branch of the Federal government is the sole arbiter of the constitutionality of a law. Judicial review should be counter-balanced with the right of nullification.

[SicEmBaylor]

All the dems always vote the party line... ALWAYS!(except in congress when given permission to vote conservative by the dem party leaders, when they already have enough votes to ef-up America on whatever issue or bill is being voted on)

This is absurd.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's ironic (yes,that is the correct word for this particular situation) that our most pathologically devoted small-government Constitutional scholar seems to be forgetting that the Constituion was designed to protect our rights, not grant them.

It's designed to limit and establish the power of the Federal government and in turn it was thought that would protect our rights (the BOR came later because the Anti-Federalists weren't quite so confident that simply limiting Federal power would be enough to ensure basic freedoms) because most power was left to the states and the assumption was that the states would provide the protection of our rights from an over-reaching Federal government. It hasn't worked out that way. And again, universal suffrage was never considered a fundamental right. If you told most of our Founding Fathers and Framers that every breathing American over the age of 18 would have the right to vote they'd have had a coronary. They themselves limited who had the right...err privilege to vote.

[SicEmBaylor]

This discussion helps me realize something - primaries are early, rushed and I feel totally unprepared to vote in Tuesday's primary... and I thought presidential primaries were insanely early.

I suppose I could just avoid feeling obligated to vote in em by registering "independent..."

Rushed? Do you realize how late Oklahoma's primary is compared to a lot of other states....Texas for example? We have a fairly late primary. It's far from rushed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is absurd.I gave the exception. .

[Okla-homey]

In any case, it's ridiculous that one branch of the Federal government is the sole arbiter of the constitutionality of a law. Judicial review should be counter-balanced with the right of nullification.

Bullfeathers! I think it works remarkably well. One branch makes laws. One branch enforces laws. And yet a third branch has the authority to tell one or both of them went too far and to back-off.

And there is a form of "nullification" of judicial review. It calls for amendment of the Constitution.

Short of that, after seeing their law go down in flames by the courts, the legislature can pass a new law which the executive can enforce for a while until the judicial branch strikes it down too. This is what BHO asked Congress to do in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which SCOTUS held corporate funding of independent political broadcasts during campaign season cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech.

[SicEmBaylor]

Bullfeathers! I think it works remarkably well. One branch makes laws. One branch enforces laws. And yet a third branch has the authority to tell one or both of them went too far and to back-off.
The problem I have is that it's still an entity of the Federal government giving the Feds, for all intents and purposes, the final say on what is Constitutional and not. This bothers me because it isn't the Federal government that created the Constitution -- the states did. The states ought to have a say on the Constitutionality of any action by the Feds regardless of branch. I don't trust any branch of the Feds not to abuse it's power.


And there is a form of "nullification" of judicial review. It calls for amendment of the Constitution.
The Amendment process wasn't designed to counter every unconstitutional act by the Feds. It definitely is an option, but it isn't feasible to pass a Constitutional amendment every time the Feds go off the reservation. If we did, the US Constitution would be as long as the Texas Constitution and as big a mess.


Short of that, after seeing their law go down in flames by the courts, the legislature can pass a new law which the executive can enforce for a while until the judicial branch strikes it down too. This is what BHO asked Congress to do in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which SCOTUS held corporate funding of independent political broadcasts during campaign season cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech.

This is a good point, but it's an awfully ugly way of doing it. And typically my concern isn't what the courts rule unconstitutional -- it's what they rule to be constitutional. Surely you can admit that over the years they've abused the original intent of the Constitution in all sorts of ways by broadly applying clauses in ways they were never intended to apply.

I just totally disagree with what TU said about the complexity of discerning Constitutional intent. If there's any question on any aspect of the Constitution, the Federalist papers provide a pretty good guide on what virtually every line means. If there's still uncertainty then read Madison's journal notes from the Constitutional Convention -- he did a pretty good job of tracking the various debates and arguments over the document. If there's still confusion then I suppose I'd relent and admit that the language is sufficiently fuzzy that it can apply in whatever way a Judge believes to be proper.

[delhalew]

The problem I have is that it's still an entity of the Federal government giving the Feds, for all intents and purposes, the final say on what is Constitutional and not. This bothers me because it isn't the Federal government that created the Constitution -- the states did. The states ought to have a say on the Constitutionality of any action by the Feds regardless of branch. I don't trust any branch of the Feds not to abuse it's power.


The Amendment process wasn't designed to counter every unconstitutional act by the Feds. It definitely is an option, but it isn't feasible to pass a Constitutional amendment every time the Feds go off the reservation. If we did, the US Constitution would be as long as the Texas Constitution and as big a mess.



This is a good point, but it's an awfully ugly way of doing it. And typically my concern isn't what the courts rule unconstitutional -- it's what they rule to be constitutional. Surely you can admit that over the years they've abused the original intent of the Constitution in all sorts of ways by broadly applying clauses in ways they were never intended to apply.

I just totally disagree with what TU said about the complexity of discerning Constitutional intent. If there's any question on any aspect of the Constitution, the Federalist papers provide a pretty good guide on what virtually every line means. If there's still uncertainty then read Madison's journal notes from the Constitutional Convention -- he did a pretty good job of tracking the various debates and arguments over the document. If there's still confusion then I suppose I'd relent and admit that the language is sufficiently fuzzy that it can apply in whatever way a Judge believes to be proper.

But Sic'em, how would would all these self important semantics monkeys we laughingly call Constitutional Scholars justify their existence if we took the founders at there words.
Apply the same concept to the economy. What ever would we do without the FED turning the screw whether it needs it or not.
As human we have the inability to stop tinkering with everything. It's a freaking psychosis.

[Okla-homey]

Surely you can admit that over the years they've abused the original intent of the Constitution in all sorts of ways by broadly applying clauses in ways they were never intended to apply.



I agree the Article I "commerce clause" has been FUBAR by social engineering-minded libs going all the way back to the FDR administration. That guy started this mess. Too bad for us he didn't croak in his first term, rather than during his fourth.

[TUSooner]

It's more cut and dry than the Federal courts have made it over the years. You can't possibly be naive enough to claim that the bias of judges hasn't made constitutional law unnecessarily complex and interpretation of the constitution totally convoluted.

In any case, it's ridiculous that one branch of the Federal government is the sole arbiter of the constitutionality of a law. Judicial review should be counter-balanced with the right of nullification.

I don't contest that. But that's not what Leroy and del were on about. Just sayin...

[Frozen Sooner]

This is a good point, but it's an awfully ugly way of doing it. And typically my concern isn't what the courts rule unconstitutional -- it's what they rule to be constitutional. Surely you can admit that over the years they've abused the original intent of the Constitution in all sorts of ways by broadly applying clauses in ways they were never intended to apply.


Do you not see any contradiction in your opposition to judicial review and bemoaning the fact that the Court has, at times, strained to find an enactment of the legislative branch Constitutional?

Under your view, any fault for straining Constitutional powers should lie with the legislature, not with the extreme judicial deference to legislative enactments.

Can't have it both ways. Either the courts should be the final arbiter of what's constitutional or the other branches get deferential treatment.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't contest that. But that's not what Leroy and del were on about. Just sayin...

I objected to the phrase "open to interpretation," which implies that the Constitution is whatever we feel we want to make it.

[TUSooner]

I objected to the phrase "open to interpretation," which implies that the Constitution is whatever we feel we want to make it.

No, the phrase does not imply that. :rolleyes:

[GKeeper316]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOq8H7DwPgQ&feature=player_embedded

TRRW likes her too

[C&CDean]

I ain't voting Tuesday cause I don't give a ****.

[Soonerwake]

In summary, all you lawyer types are talking constitution this and rights that.

And, Dean still doesn't give a ***.

Excellent.

BTW, I'm voting for Askins too. In my humble opinion, she really cares about this state and the people in it. Have met her on numerous occassions, and she is as good as they come.

[SicEmBaylor]

In summary, all you lawyer types are talking constitution this and rights that.

And, Dean still doesn't give a ***.

Excellent.

BTW, I'm voting for Askins too. In my humble opinion, she really cares about this state and the people in it. Have met her on numerous occassions, and she is as good as they come.

So, every other candidate doesn't give a **** about the state or the people in it? I can actually believe that, to an extent, about Fallin. The rest of them though I'm sure care about the state and its people just as much as their competitors. It isn't about "caring."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In summary, all you lawyer types are talking constitution this and rights that.

And, Dean still doesn't give a ***.

Excellent.

BTW, I'm voting for Askins too. In my humble opinion, she really cares about this state and the people in it. Have met her on numerous occassions, and she is as good as they come.Have you ever voted democrat before? If not, Welcome to the Charlie Brown club...

[JohnnyMack]

So, every other candidate doesn't give a **** about the state or the people in it? I can actually believe that, to an extent, about Fallin. The rest of them though I'm sure care about the state and its people just as much as their competitors. It isn't about "caring."

As long as Brogdon doesn't get out of the primary I don't care who wins the general election.

[SicEmBaylor]

As long as Brogdon doesn't get out of the primary I don't care who wins the general election.

Brogdon is going to be a phenomenal governor.

[JohnnyMack]

Brogdon is going to be a phenomenal governor.

This is a guy who takes kickbacks from the liquor lobby (allegedly) to maintain the status quo of our antiquated laws concerning where liquor can be purchased and attempted to have the ten commandments erected on the grounds of the state capitol. Pass.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Brogdon is going to be a phenomenal governor.Is he as strong as Christie in NJ?

[C&CDean]

Brogdon is going to be a phenomenal governor.

Really? After Fallin kicks his *** on Tuesday is he gonna run as an independent?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

What makes it impractical? We require that people be able to read and pass a test (two of them actually) just to drive, so why shouldn't we require a test for something infinitely more important? I'm under no illusion that everyone who passes the test will be an informed citizen, but it'll stop campaign activists from literally grabbing people off the street and putting them into a voting booth (I know it happens because I've done it and it isn't uncommon) or having every Tom and Harry Jackass from voting. The expectation is that if someone has to EARN the right to vote then they'll have a little more respect for the process.

I have no problem with your prescription, I just wonder if you think that we'd actually get better candidates or better results if we had more "educated" voters?

Maybe I'm just too jaded.

[Frozen Sooner]

What makes it impractical? We require that people be able to read and pass a test (two of them actually) just to drive,

Sure about that?

[SicEmBaylor]

Sure about that?

Yes, in Oklahoma you have to have passed a reading exam that's usually administered in 8th grade though if you don't pass you have other opportunities to take it I think. In any case, you have to be able to read to get a license in OK.

The way it works is that you take a form from your school to the DMV whereby the school certifies that you've passed the reading exam.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, in Oklahoma you have to have passed a reading exam that's usually administered in 8th grade though if you don't pass you have other opportunities to take it I think. In any case, you have to be able to read to get a license in OK.

The way it works is that you take a form from your school to the DMV whereby the school certifies that you've passed the reading exam.

Fair enough. Most states will read the test out loud to an illiterate.

Edit: Looking at the Oklahoma DMV info, it looks like that requirement only applies to people under 18. For those over 18, an oral exam will be administered on request.

[SicEmBaylor]

Fair enough. Most states will read the test out loud to an illiterate.

Edit: Looking at the Oklahoma DMV info, it looks like that requirement only applies to people under 18. For those over 18, an oral exam will be administered on request.

This saddens me. I thought OK was pretty ahead on the curve.

[Frozen Sooner]

Look on the bright side: people who can't read probably won't be texting while they drive.

And I could be wrong. I just can't think of any reason an oral exam would be administered except for an illiterate-not like there's an ADA blindness issue there. Or so we hope. I guess it could be a dyslexia issue, though generally accommodation for dyslexia is an untimed test.

[SicEmBaylor]

Look on the bright side: people who can't read probably won't be texting while they drive.

And I could be wrong. I just can't think of any reason an oral exam would be administered except for an illiterate-not like there's an ADA blindness issue there. Or so we hope. I guess it could be a dyslexia issue, though generally accommodation for dyslexia is an untimed test.

I routinely drive and text. I don't drive and talk though as that would be too dangerous.

[Okla-homey]

I routinely drive and text. I don't drive and talk though as that would be too dangerous.

That's okay. If you crash your scooter, you're likely only to injure yourself. Unless some by-passer has a stroke while laughing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I routinely drive and text. I don't drive and talk though as that would be too dangerous.I think you carcked a joke, right?

[Curly Bill]

I text while I drive, but looking on the bright side, it keeps me from drinking at the same time.

[Half a Hundred]

And we forget the whole "driving on the public roads is a privilege, voting is a fundamental right" thing.

[Frozen Sooner]

And we forget the whole "driving on the public roads is a privilege, voting is a fundamental right" thing.

We haven't. Sic 'em doesn't think it is.

[Zbird]

for Okie guvner.

http://www.jariaskins.com/?p=1468

and may I also say, Mary Fallin is a ditz, Randy Brogdon is a crack-pot, and Drew Edmundson is, well, the son of a former governor who is an empty suit.

You really disappoint me Homey. I thought you knew a little about history since you post about it a lot. I'm really disappointed NO ONE has corrected you on this board.

No, it's not about your preference for Governor. She's a good one.

You've confused Drew's father with his uncle. Jay Howard (his uncle) was Governor. His father was Ed Edmondson, a long term well liked US Representative from Eastern OK. Back to the history books bub, and fifty lashes with a wet Brogdon.

[Okla-homey]

You really disappoint me Homey. I thought you knew a little about history since you post about it a lot. I'm really disappointed NO ONE has corrected you on this board.

No, it's not about your preference for Governor. She's a good one.

You've confused Drew's father with his uncle. Jay Howard (his uncle) was Governor. His father was Ed Edmondson, a long term well liked US Representative from Eastern OK. Back to the history books bub, and fifty lashes with a wet Brogdon.

I was actually advised of my error confidentiallly by a guy who grew up with Drew. He concurred Drew ain't got much upstairs, compared to Jay and Ed. Anyway, it still smacks of "gimme the gig, because of my last name." I don't usually cotton to that sort of thing.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Edmonsons are the absolute worst. I respect the Boren family, but the Edmonsons are dreadful. My uncle went to law school and was best-friends with one of the Boren's. Their family always treated my uncle with a great deal of respect and kindless and that counts for a lot.

[Okla-homey]

Woo-H00!!!! Jari beat Drew! Now I'll get to vote for her in November. Thanks registered Dem folks who voted for her. She's a daisy!

[soonerscuba]

How badly is she going to get pounded by the trooper-stouper?

[badger]

Congrats to Mary and Jari. As media like the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/governors/fallin-wins-oklahoma-gop-nod-f.html?wprss=thefix) has already pointed out, the winner in November will be Oklahoma's first female governor.

Take THAT, people who think Oklahoma isn't progressive!

Also, I think that as this thread states, Barry Switzer endorsed her. I would think that it wouldn't make a difference if this was a wide margin victory for either Drew or Jari, but I think it clearly made a difference in an election this close.

Barry for the win!

[Pricetag]

How badly is she going to get pounded by the trooper-stouper?
I think Steve Largent would be finishing up his second term if we were capable of electing someone like Fallin.

[C&CDean]

We're gonna have an all-time low turnout at the generals. Neither of them are black. A whole bunch of newbie voters ain't gonna bother.

[C&CDean]

Maybe Mary can say she did a black trooper once in the backseat of a patrol car. That might count for something.

[Shakadoodoo]

We're gonna have an all-time low turnout at the generals. Neither of them are black. A whole bunch of newbie voters ain't gonna bother.

I do not think black candidates does much for the popular vote in this reddest of red states.

[Soonerus]

Jari...Jari...Jari...

[tommieharris91]

We're gonna have an all-time low turnout at the generals. Neither of them are black. A whole bunch of newbie voters ain't gonna bother.

Heh, the Dems turned out better than the Pubs did in this one.

[Okla-homey]

GO JARI! BEAT THE TROOPER-SCHTOOPER!

oh yeah. It's gonna get dirty folks. Real dirty.:D

[JohnnyMack]

I think that ultimately the 4 choices we were given were quite lame.

I don't know which one I'll vote for yet, but I'm relatively unenthusiastic.

[badger]

Republicans set record turnout for a guber primary last nite. Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20100728_262_0_hrimgs724154)

Dems still outnumbered Republicans in turnout by about 20k, according to the article. However, Dem turnout is about 1k less than four years ago, about 90k less than 8 years ago for the guber primary, when they had 350,000+ turnout for a guber primary, the one that nominated Brad Henry the first time.

And now, to swear off ever using the phrase "guber primary" ever, ever again... now!

[GottaHavePride]

Congrats to Mary and Jari. As media like the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/governors/fallin-wins-oklahoma-gop-nod-f.html?wprss=thefix) has already pointed out, the winner in November will be Oklahoma's first female governor.

Take THAT, people who think Oklahoma isn't progressive!


Um, Oklahoma isn't. At least not in this way. 23 states have already had a female governor going back to 1925. And those states include Texas, Alabama, and Kentucky.

;)

[Viking Kitten]

This is however, only the fourth time in U.S. history that two women have faced off against each other for a governor's seat. Hawaii and Nebraska were the first two, NM also has two women in its race this year.

[JohnnyMack]

Cooking. Cleaning. Vaginas.

I don't remember anything about running a state government being mentioned in the above three items.

[SicEmBaylor]

God, I hate progress.

[badger]

God, I hate progress.

Unless it's on the football field, amirite? Or would you prefer to stick in the SWC dark ages where you continuously lose to us and UT? :D

But I digress. Both of these candidates are ambitious representatives that could have stuck in their comfort zone former offices... in both cases lt. gov... and chose to go for larger roles.

Fallin went from Lt. Gov. to Congresswoman to potential governor, while Askins went from ALMOST-Speakeradahouse to Lt. Gov. to potential governor... and yes, I know Askins was term limited out when she was in the House, but still!

Yes, they're chicks. But they're not token chicks. And voters are voting for them in majorly contested races.

Like Viking said, this has some historical significance, and even if we're only the 24th state to get a female governor, well, at least we're not ranked in the 40s in something for once, just ahead of Mississippi (no disrespect, Mississippi!)

[Okla-homey]

Um, Oklahoma isn't. At least not in this way. 23 states have already had a female governor going back to 1925. And those states include Texas, Alabama, and Kentucky.

;)

Bama's lady guv don't count...like their pre-1950 mythical national championships. Lurleen Wallace only became Bammer governor cuz her husband George got shot.

[SicEmBaylor]

Bama's lady guv don't count...like their pre-1950 mythical national championships. Lurleen Wallace only became Bammer governor cuz her husband George got shot.

I would say Ma Ferguson in Texas wouldn't count for a similar reason. Nobody voted for her -- they voted for her husband.

[badger]

btw, thelostogle.com has awesome Q&A with Askins, Edmondson and Fallin posted, and they look legit. Fun Daily Show-type questions ("Where do you really think Barack Obama was born?") with some good-natured humor answers.

Lost Ogle: Without choosing Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy or Brent Rinehart, who is your political role model?

Drew Edmondson: Aragorn, Son of Arathorn

My gawd, how did you Democrats not vote for this man?!?! Judgemental eyes in your direction, finger of shame pointed.... SHAME! SHAAAAAAAME!

:D

[Crucifax Autumn]

That woulda got my vote.

[Scott D]

I'm impressed he knew that Aragorn was the son of Arathorn.

[C&CDean]

GO JARI! BEAT THE TROOPER-SCHTOOPER!

oh yeah. It's gonna get dirty folks. Real dirty.:D

Chick Fight!!!

[SicEmBaylor]

Unless it's on the football field, amirite? Or would you prefer to stick in the SWC dark ages where you continuously lose to us and UT? :D

I would love to go back to the SWC. We had some conference championships, and quite the contrary we had plenty of victories against UT. As for OU, well even that is preferable since we didn't play OU every year when we were in the SWC.

[badger]

I would love to go back to the SWC. We had some conference championships, and quite the contrary we had plenty of victories against UT. As for OU, well even that is preferable since we didn't play OU every year when we were in the SWC.

oh man... and to think i was joking :O

[SicEmBaylor]

oh man... and to think i was joking :O

I'm just sayin'...Baylor was doing well in the SWC.

[Pricetag]

So who is going to win this thing, Fallin or President Obama?

When is Jari going to get in the game? I live in Tulsa, and I haven't heard a peep from her.

What I've heard from Fallin is exactly what I expected--she has no chance for my vote if she keeps doing what she's doing now. I sure hate to see her the only one talking, though.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So who is going to win this thing, Fallin or President Obama?

Well said. That is what it comes down to.