Great diverse candidates...
Mary Fallin has the name recognition from here two terms in Congress and 12 years as Lt. Governor, but she lost many conservative republicans with a highly publicized affair with her assigned Highway Trooper. Randy Brogdon has the Tea party crowd and the fiscal conservatives, but has made bizarre statements about militia and mandatory bible classes in schools.
Jari Askins has the money to self-fund and has served as Lt. Governor for four years, but has a resume light on accomplishments. Drew Edmondson has been very strong as State Attorney General, but his obsession with the poultry lawsuits has cost him friends.
Something for everybody...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 07, 2010, 03:39:36 PM
Great diverse candidates...
Mary Fallin has the name recognition from here two terms in Congress and 12 years as Lt. Governor, but she lost many conservative republicans with a highly publicized affair with her assigned Highway Trooper. Randy Brogdon has the Tea party crowd and the fiscal conservatives, but has made bizarre statements about militia and mandatory bible classes in schools.
Jari Askins has the money to self-fund and has served as Lt. Governor for four years, but has a resume light on accomplishments. Drew Edmondson has been very strong as State Attorney General, but his obsession with the poultry lawsuits has cost him friends.
Something for everybody...
I enjoy a poultry heavy platform.
The little I've cared to learn about Brogdon alarms me.
Askins' tweets are at least fairly informative.
Not sure about Fallin so far.
I think most people have put Fallin's past behind her where it belongs. One thing Democrats need to realize: Conservatives will circle the wagon around their candidate, flawed or not (Rep. Sullivan, anyone?), before they will vote for a Democrat. Her alleged affair is as relevant to her campaign as is AG Edmonson's niece, Sara, participating in a crime spree in which she paralyzed a woman by shooting her being relevant to his campaign.
I admit to keeping enough distance from the Tea Party goings on that I honestly can't gauge overall support for Brogdon. At one point, his fund raising was only about 10 to 20% of Fallin's which is usually a fair gauge of how well someone will do in an election. Brogdon has that bat-smile crazy look that simply scares me.
I don't think Lt. Gov. Askins' resume is really that light. She's got a wider variety of experiences, at least according to her ads than Edmondson does. Judge, State Rep, Lt. Governor. She should have a pretty good idea how all phases of state government works and has been a close observer of what I'd consider a fairly successful 8 year stint by Gov. Henry.
Edmonson has been the AG forever. What else notable has he done other than the poultry waste lawsuit which has eaten up millions in taxpayer funds and also created misconceptions about the Illinois River which has hurt tourism in the region. I appreciate his environmental concerns, but at what cost has it come?
I think it will come down to Askins & Fallin. I could vote for either one of them as I think either will do a good job as possible, given current budget issues, and has the relevant experience of being a Lt. Governor. If it comes down to Brogdon and Edmonson, I'll vote for Mark Perkins ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2010, 04:11:39 PM
Her alleged affair is as relevant to her campaign as is AG Edmonson's niece, Sara, participating in a crime spree in which she paralyzed a woman by shooting her being relevant to his campaign.
How so? One involves a direct (alleged) action by the person involved. The other involves an action by someone marginally related.
Quote from: TURobY on June 07, 2010, 04:37:13 PM
How so? One involves a direct (alleged) action by the person involved. The other involves an action by someone marginally related.
If Conan's point was that affairs, in general, shouldn't be an issue in an election, I agree completely with him. ;)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4680916264_0be50006e8_m.jpg)
He has superpowers!
Quote from: TURobY on June 07, 2010, 04:37:13 PM
How so? One involves a direct (alleged) action by the person involved. The other involves an action by someone marginally related.
A 12 year old alleged affair is of no concern nor are past substance abuse issues. Those would concern me if they were active problems as I'd wonder how thy might detract from their duties.
I was drawing a correlation as to how irrelevant certain issues affect my decision to vote for a candidate or not whilst engaging in childish tit for tat with RM. FWIW, libs tried to make an issue of VP Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. My personal problem with him
was his sociopathic tendencies.
One problem I would have with Edmondson is whether or not he used his influence to get his niece parolled. There was some flap on the radio in OKC a few weeks ago. I don't care how mixed up she was, she shot someone, they were paralyzed and died a few years later. Miss Edmondson should not have been treated any different on sentencing.
I've not investigated the issue further, but I'm sure it will come up again if it has traction.
So, going by some of this, Billy Bob's affairs should have no relevance to his Presidency.
How about Newt's secrets?
I agree completely - that stuff just isn't relevant to political office.
Brogdon is proud to be a Bircher. Bircher's have always associated themselves with racist, bigoted causes - big supporters of the basic KKK tenets and oh, by the way, they are anti-communist. (Is that still relevant today? I've been out of touch.) So, I guess my feeble mind would tend to think that he is at least mentally aligned with at least some of the principals of said KKK. Could be wrong, but 50 years of history kind of indicates a trend to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2010, 10:34:43 PM
A 12 year old alleged affair is of no concern nor are past substance abuse issues. Those would concern me if they were active problems as I'd wonder how thy might detract from their duties.
I was drawing a correlation as to how irrelevant certain issues affect my decision to vote for a candidate or not whilst engaging in childish tit for tat with RM. FWIW, libs tried to make an issue of VP Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. My personal problem with him
was his sociopathic tendencies.
One problem I would have with Edmondson is whether or not he used his influence to get his niece parolled. There was some flap on the radio in OKC a few weeks ago. I don't care how mixed up she was, she shot someone, they were paralyzed and died a few years later. Miss Edmondson should not have been treated any different on sentencing.
I've not investigated the issue further, but I'm sure it will come up again if it has traction.
I do have issues with substance abuse problems. I honestly don't think that we should vote for addicts. I really don't know why people do. Maybe the dems could get Marion Barry to run. There does seem to be some Republican love affair with people with a past of substance abuse.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2010, 10:45:45 PM
Bircher's have always associated themselves with racist, bigoted causes - big supporters of the basic KKK tenets and oh, by the way, they are anti-communist.
I have plenty of problems with the Bircher tendency toward conspiracy theory, but I don't think you can back up your claim that it's ever been a racist organization.
Quote from: MichaelBates on June 08, 2010, 12:28:12 AM
I have plenty of problems with the Bircher tendency toward conspiracy theory, but I don't think you can back up your claim that it's ever been a racist organization.
That started with the Society's stance against the Civil Rights movement.
"Support your Local Police" campaign against using federal powers to protect the civil rights advocates.
I predict Fallin vs. Askins and either way Oklahoma will have its first female governor. I support Askins, she has the most state government experience and is a true moderate which is necessary to balance our far-right legislature.
Quote from: nathanm on June 07, 2010, 08:51:30 PM
If Conan's point was that affairs, in general, shouldn't be an issue in an election, I agree completely with him. ;)
I have a bit of a problem with that. When a person engages in an affair they are engaging in deception of the highest order. They do not value the relationship with their spouse, yet they continue the relationship to capitalize on mutual benefit or weakness. They are acting at the expense of another person. This behavior is never mutually exclusive to their personal lives.
Deception is a skill, and the level of deception necessary to engage in an affair is far higher than the level of deception necessary to break a business or political commitment.
I understand that having an affair is not against the law, which makes it even worse. In politics the level of commitment to a constituency is very similar. It's your word and how you transform your word into action. Your elected officials do not have to live with you, or kiss the children each night. A person that can engage in that level of close-quarters deception far more capable of political deception, and the flaw makes them vulnerable to disastrous consequences for their constituents. Why must we keep learning this lesson?
Values really do matter. If you wish to serve your community, show it first in how your serve your family.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2010, 09:51:28 AM
I have a bit of a problem with that. When a person engages in an affair they are engaging in deception of the highest order. They do not value the relationship with their spouse, yet they continue the relationship to capitalize on mutual benefit or weakness. They are acting at the expense of another person. This behavior is never mutually exclusive to their personal lives.
Deception is a skill, and the level of deception necessary to engage in an affair is far higher than the level of deception necessary to break a business or political commitment.
I understand that having an affair is not against the law, which makes it even worse. In politics the level of commitment to a constituency is very similar. It's your word and how you transform your word into action. Your elected officials do not have to live with you, or kiss the children each night. A person that can engage in that level of close-quarters deception far more capable of political deception, and the flaw makes them vulnerable to disastrous consequences for their constituents. Why must we keep learning this lesson?
Values really do matter. If you wish to serve your community, show it first in how your serve your family.
Keep in mind, it was an
alleged affair. The trooper she supposedly had the affair with denied it. In all the articles, there was never a photo or phone recording (that I'm aware of) which proved this happened. This was an allegation which came out during her divorce from her first husband. How do we know for certain that Askins, Brogdon, and Edmondson have never cheated on their spouse?
I understand your point and Trogdor makes a decent point as well. I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find any candidate who has never engaged in deception in their entire life.
I agree, there has to be some moral standards to hold our politicians up to, but As a nation based largely on Judeo-Christian traditions (trying carefully not to open a new can of worms) at what point though do we start holding others to a higher standard than God does (or ourselves) when it comes to forgiveness for past transgressions? Being a politician, with few rare exceptions, seems to require a certain level of conditional honestly with your constituency.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 10:55:27 AM
Keep in mind, it was an alleged affair. The trooper she supposedly had the affair with denied it. In all the articles, there was never a photo or phone recording (that I'm aware of) which proved this happened.
Just a sec...I'm searching youtube for the dashcam recordings...
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 10:55:27 AM
Keep in mind, it was an alleged affair. The trooper she supposedly had the affair with denied it. In all the articles, there was never a photo or phone recording (that I'm aware of) which proved this happened. This was an allegation which came out during her divorce from her first husband. How do we know for certain that Askins, Brogdon, and Edmondson have never cheated on their spouse?
I understand your point and Trogdor makes a decent point as well. I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find any candidate who has never engaged in deception in their entire life.
I agree, there has to be some moral standards to hold our politicians up to, but As a nation based largely on Judeo-Christian traditions (trying carefully not to open a new can of worms) at what point though do we start holding others to a higher standard than God does (or ourselves) when it comes to forgiveness for past transgressions? Being a politician, with few rare exceptions, seems to require a certain level of conditional honestly with your constituency.
Point taken.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2010, 10:55:27 AM
Keep in mind, it was an alleged affair. The trooper she supposedly had the affair with denied it. In all the articles, there was never a photo or phone recording (that I'm aware of) which proved this happened. This was an allegation which came out during her divorce from her first husband. How do we know for certain that Askins, Brogdon, and Edmondson have never cheated on their spouse?
I didn't say I held her affair against her. I wrote that some conservative republicans would not support her after the affair.
I hold marriage as a sacred matter, but understand that others, especially those going through a divorce, are of different mind. I would not hold anyone in a bad marriage and going through a divorce to a standard that would cause them to lose my vote.
But I also saw too much information from too many witnesses to say it was an alleged affair. It is also disturbing that she chose someone who worked for her. Having an affair with a neighbor or friend is different than sleeping with someone who you supervise.
Last February, the local Tulsa Republican party had a rally attended by about 500 folks. They held a straw poll and Brogdon got 68% to Fallins 23 % of the votes. Unless a lot of rino Republicans check in for the primary, it looks to me like it's going to be Brogdon in a walk come July 27. If he's just as strong in Oklahoma City, where he has even more name recognition, he's probably our next governor.
Quote from: eDuece on June 08, 2010, 01:33:19 PM
Last February, the local Tulsa Republican party had a rally attended by about 500 folks. They held a straw poll and Brogdon got 68% to Fallins 23 % of the votes. Unless a lot of rino Republicans check in for the primary, it looks to me like it's going to be Brogdon in a walk come July 27. If he's just as strong in Oklahoma City, where he has even more name recognition, he's probably our next governor.
I will consider moving to another state if that happens.
Quote from: eDuece on June 08, 2010, 01:33:19 PM
Last February, the local Tulsa Republican party had a rally attended by about 500 folks. They held a straw poll and Brogdon got 68% to Fallins 23 % of the votes. Unless a lot of rino Republicans check in for the primary, it looks to me like it's going to be Brogdon in a walk come July 27. If he's just as strong in Oklahoma City, where he has even more name recognition, he's probably our next governor.
QuoteIf the race for governor were held today, State Sen. Randy Brogdon would win the GOP primary in Tulsa, according to a straw poll taken at a gathering of staunch Republicans Saturday.
Brogdon, who attended the rally, got 68 percent of the vote, versus U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin, who drew only 23 percent in the straw poll.
He was there...of course he'd pull more votes...they were his minions.
Per Soonerpoll.com (trust it if you want) she leads him among OK GOP 68% to 16% as of last January.
QuoteRepublican Primary
Poll Source Dates Administered Mary Fallin Randy Brogdon
SoonerPoll.com Jan. 2-5, 2010 68% 16%
Quote from: eDuece on June 08, 2010, 01:33:19 PM
Last February, the local Tulsa Republican party had a rally attended by about 500 folks. They held a straw poll and Brogdon got 68% to Fallins 23 % of the votes. Unless a lot of rino Republicans check in for the primary, it looks to me like it's going to be Brogdon in a walk come July 27. If he's just as strong in Oklahoma City, where he has even more name recognition, he's probably our next governor.
Why would a state senator from Owasso have better name recognition in Oklahoma City than in Tulsa?
Quote from: swake on June 08, 2010, 01:54:50 PM
Why would a state senator from Owasso have better name recognition in Oklahoma City than in Tulsa?
Because it suits his/her paradigm.
Quote from: Townsend on June 08, 2010, 01:41:03 PM
He was there...of course he'd pull more votes...they were his minions.
Per Soonerpoll.com (trust it if you want) she leads him among OK GOP 68% to 16% as of last January.
Yeah she was already campaigning at that point. I went to a fundraiser dinner for another candidate and her people were handing out cards and courting support. The fact that Brogdon got 16% with no wheels turning is pretty huge.
As a result of the current political climate, a growing majority of Republicans are embracing a more conservative Libertarian agenda, and Brogdon offers a consistent message. He should not have a difficult time picking up Fallon supporters based on the issues.
It will come down to how well he gets the message out. Fallon has s significant lead over him, and the other Democrat candidates according to the polls, but many of the Republicans I know, most of which were Fallon supporters are beginning to give him a good look.
When compared on issues alone, Randy Brogdon boasts a far more Libertarian agenda than any of the other candidates.
I don't think we can rely on poll data this early because the winds stirred up in Washington are really beginning to blow and there are storms in every state. It will certainly be an interesting race.
Governor Susan Salvage.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2010, 09:51:28 AM
Values really do matter. If you wish to serve your community, show it first in how your serve your family.
Values do matter. It's too bad your yard stick isn't straight, or even a yard long.
I've known far too many businesspeople who engaged in such tomfoolery, but who still manage to be some of the most fair dealing people I know to fall for the mistake of presuming someone's personal indiscretions truly reflect their professional character. Religion, religious values, and sleeping around are orthogonal with what you're referring to as character.
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2010, 03:00:04 PM
. . .fair dealing people . . .
That's a good example. We obviously admire different attributes, and that's fine.
I don't seek fairness. I tend to run from that concept.
I like honest, trustworthy, dependable, reliable, and consistent. These are the general character descriptors I look for.
Fair, just, equatable, and other descriptors that allude to a "balance" don't thrill me. When you tell me a candidate is "very fair in his/her dealings" you are already qualifying the poor decisions of that individual and weighting them against the good decisions.
True, we all make mistakes, and should be forgiven for our lapses in judgment, but our track record in personal and public decision making forms the sum of our character and it cannot be ignored.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2010, 03:22:24 PM
That's a good example. We obviously admire different attributes, and that's fine.
I don't seek fairness. I tend to run from that concept.
I like honest, trustworthy, dependable, reliable, and consistent. These are the general character descriptors I look for.
Fair, just, equatable, and other descriptors that allude to a "balance" don't thrill me. When you tell me a candidate is "very fair in his/her dealings" you are already qualifying the poor decisions of that individual and weighting them against the good decisions.
True, we all make mistakes, and should be forgiven for our lapses in judgment, but our track record in personal and public decision making forms the sum of our character and it cannot be ignored.
How can one have honesty without fairness? To me, fairness and trustworthiness are inextricably linked. That you would characterize a fair deal as a poor decision is quite disturbing.
MichaelBates,
You weren't around in the late '50s, '60s, and '70s before they have tried to 'remake' their image. They have traditionally been aligned as a 'talking head' mouthpiece of the Klan. They talk about wanting to do the stuff that the Klan was the action group for.
Their's is a family value of hatred, bigotry, and...oh wait...the world already knows that.
Any organization, such as the Birchers, that opposed civil rights legislation during the 1950s and '60s has a big credibility problem. The states' rights argument that it used was the same tack that Southern states used to keep black people under the thumb of whites.
The hands-off approach that the John Birch Society espoused helped the South maintain Jim Crow laws for more than 50 years. Just sitting back and waiting for things to change in that region was utterly futile.
If you had a segment of the population that was systematically violating the constitutional rights of minorities, the federal government had better intervene -- especially when those state and local governments refused to do so.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Wallace_at_University_of_Alabama_edit2.jpg/800px-Wallace_at_University_of_Alabama_edit2.jpg)
Times change. I don't associate the Democrat party with being pro-segregation in schools. Are Birchers actively campaigning to repeal the Civil Rights movement? Is someone thinking to themselves "By gawd I'm gonna join that there Birch society so we can get back our whites-only waterfountains once and fer' all!!" I severely doubt it.
The Civil Rights movement is a done deal, it is not an issue for debate. Anyone bigoted enough to actually still be wishing for things to return to the way they were 60 years ago is likely to die of old age in the not too distant future. The only time the Civil Rights movement is presented as a present day issue to political candidates would be instances like MSNBC trolling Rand Paul because they've figured out they might be able to nail him in a game of "gotcha" due to a principled stance against government intervention in private business that has nothing to do with bigotry or racially motivated reasoning. Asking such questions today is as nonsensical as asking Mayoral Candidate Bartlett if it is a good idea to annex Red Fork into the City of Tulsa.
People interested in Brogdon are motivated by the desire to take back the powers the Federal Government has usurped, it isn't anything to do with race. His main focal points are about fighting the overreach of government, stopping the erosion of our sovereignty, and getting back to adhering to the Constitution. These are things that people who believe in them believe in passionately. Take special notice that "bringing a return to Jim Crow laws" isn't one of the motivating factors here.
It all boils down to a vicious political trick to make people think the candidate should be ignored, ostracized, etc.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 08, 2010, 11:23:45 PM
Any organization, such as the Birchers, that opposed civil rights legislation during the 1950s and '60s has a big credibility problem. The states' rights argument that it used was the same tack that Southern states used to keep black people under the thumb of whites.
The hands-off approach that the John Birch Society espoused helped the South maintain Jim Crow laws for more than 50 years. Just sitting back and waiting for things to change in that region was utterly futile.
If you had a segment of the population that was systematically violating the constitutional rights of minorities, the federal government had better intervene -- especially when those state and local governments refused to do so.
YT makes great points.
Then, by your logic, Rwarn, the Democrat Party should have a serious credibility problem. You can't skate past that one by saying: "Those Democrats are all Republicans now".
The honest truth is many people's minds and hearts have changed over the years about civil rights. I'm sure there are many amongst us, though few will admit it honestly, whose parents were against the CRA's and you'd never have considered that your own parents were racists.
I don't pay close attention to the JBS, but a current or even past characterization of it being a racist group or a front for the KKK is far off-base. They were formed as an anti-communist group and are against big government, progressive taxation, communism, collectivism, etc. Their reasons for opposing the CRA's were libertarian in nature, not overt racism. Though I'm sure there were and are probably racist members of the JBS, as there are racist members of just about every single politically active group in the United States. The Democrat Party harbors racists to this day (Hymietown, anyone? Diamond merchants?, White Devils?, US of KKK A?) and tolerates them.
No, I'm not a JBS member, but their small government views are very closely aligned with my own. The whole racist angle is perpetrated by their detractors, much like the way the Tea Party has been treated in liberal circles. Liberals fear libertarian idealogy, so they attempt to paint people with those views as a bunch of radical, racist, disaffected right wingers. It's smear, pure and simple. "Bircher" is a great example of the derision hurled at them.
At least according to the JBS, racism is not considered acceptible nor is tolerated:
"Thursday, 08 April 2010 13:32
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Bill HahnThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , Public Relations Manager,
The John Birch Society
Forged racist letters sent to Oklahoma City media
The John Birch Society denounces letters, racism, and those involved
APPLETON, WIS.—April 8, 2010—A highly disturbing letter printed on "White Christians' Fraternal Order..." letterhead, dated April 7, 2010, was sent to at least one media outlet in Oklahoma City, The Black Chronicle. The letter's return address is for the "John Birch Institute, 701 Colcord Dr, Oklahoma City, OK 73102." That physical street address is actually for the Oklahoma City Police Department.
The phone number listed on the bottom of the letter is the number for The John Birch Society headquarters office in Appleton, WI: 920-749-3780. The letter closes with a twisted version of one of JBS's tag lines: Standing for Family & Freedom.
Bill Hahn, Public Relations Manager for The John Birch Society, said, "We are making this available to alert the Oklahoma City media that the letter did not come from The John Birch Society. We do not know who sent it. We do not approve of the letter's message and strongly denounce both the message and the individual or group involved in this disgusting and illegal activity. We have reported this to the Oklahoma City Police Department. We thank The Black Chronicle for immediately alerting us of the letter and faxing us a copy."
Mr. Russell Perry, President of The Black Chronicle, stated, "I received this irresponsible letter and had it forwarded over to The John Birch Society leadership right away for them to constructively respond to."
Mr. Clark Curry, Chapter Leader for the Oklahoma City local JBS, said of the letter, "This is not the first time that false correspondence has gone out purporting to be from The John Birch Society. The Society knows of several instances over its 52-year history when similar false letters have attempted to align JBS with racist methods or organizations."
Racism is not acceptable and is not tolerated at The John Birch Society.
If you have received one of these letters, please let us and the Oklahoma City Police Department (405-297-1000) know right away."
http://www.jbs.org/press-room/6189-racist-letters-sent-to-okc-media
You youngsters just didn't know the 'Birch' of yesteryear. Perhaps they have changed. Perhaps it's just candy coating. Even Jerry Falwell said some things that were correct and based on sound principals. Like a stopped watch can get it right twice a day...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 09, 2010, 12:25:35 PM
You youngsters just didn't know the 'Birch' of yesteryear. Perhaps they have changed. Perhaps it's just candy coating. Even Jerry Falwell said some things that were correct and based on sound principals. Like a stopped watch can get it right twice a day...
Or perhaps you were misled on who they were back in the day.
"Robert Welch explained at the founding meeting of The John Birch Society why he had chosen John as the namesake for the organization. He said, " ...the young man I admire most of all those America has produced was a fundamentalist Baptist missionary named John Birch. My own obsession with this fight against the increasing forces of evil in the world, which ... has caused me to give up business career and income and any prospect of ever having any peace or leisure again during my lifetime, is due in large part to my admiration for John Birch; to my feeling that I simply had to pick up and carry, to the utmost of my ability and energy, the torch of a humane righteousness which he was carrying so well and so faithfully when the Communists struck him down."
FYI- John Birch was gunned down by the Chi Coms in 1945, ten days
after the end of the war.
Educate yourself rather than spouting inaccuracies:
http://www.jbs.org/john-birch
Quote from: Conan71 on June 09, 2010, 12:49:38 PM
Educate yourself rather than spouting inaccuracies:
If everyone did that, we wouldn't have much to talk about.
You can't educate yourself by reading their propaganda. IF misled, then it was them doing the misleading. The "front" story was anti-commie, but the back story had large additional components. I lived with it those years. And saw the reality of their "theories". And it was more like Jerry Falwell than Billy Graham. (Two men at opposite ends of the universe, in case the reference is too obscure...)
Or Oral Roberts and Billy Graham.
Or Jim Baker and Billy Graham.
Or deception/lies and honesty/truth.
Just about everything you see, read, or hear in the political spectrum is propaganda, from all sides. The most important thing is that you understand on your own what principals, ideals, and values you stand for before you get sucked into the influences of a larger group which wants you as their pawn in their power struggle.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 09, 2010, 04:56:19 PM
Or Oral Roberts and Billy Graham.
Or Jim Baker and Billy Graham.
Or deception/lies and honesty/truth.
This illustrates the problem in a nutshell. You see what you disagree with and what you agree with as black & white. One side can do no wrong, the other side can do no right. My argument here is that no set of ideas is 100% perfect, and on the same token, the opposing set of ideas should never be considered so 100% incorrect that it is completely disqualified from consideration. And that is just on an idealogical level. Once you get into these groups of people banding together for political influence (such as JBS, CPUSA, Tea Partiers, moveon.org, etc.) the inherent imperfections are just greater and greater.
If I disagree with the expanded government ideas of Obama, I don't fight the battle by saying "He did such and such therefore all of his ideas are of no value and should be blindly ignored". No, I offer a difference of opinion and an argument as to why I believe his ideas are the wrong ones.
To be fair, it is quite obvious my political leanings are right of center, and I am not going to argue that there are not plenty of folks on the right who do exactly the thing I am speaking out against. I see plenty of examples of blind ignorance from the right just as I do from the left.
There are actually things that are black and white.
But most things are definitely shades of gray. Kind of the whole point I have tried to make from time to time around here. Reading so much of this site, Muslims are invariably bad. Israelis' good. Bush is invariably good. Pelosi is invariably bad (in spite of what Tom Coburn says. Good guy; wish we had another like him instead of Inhofe.) Kennedy bad. Gingrich good.
Well, you get the idea.
Having watched Billy Graham from childhood, I can say unequivocally that I do not agree with everything he believed in, but overall, he was such a good man, I have no qualms about regarding him with utmost respect and even affection.
Jerry Falwell, same on the first part - didn't agree with some - did others. The problem comes about with the total mass of what he truly represented was so repugnant as to offset the things I agreed with. Jim Baker - same thing. Oral Roberts - pretty much the same, to a lessor degree (some grayness!!)
So, by your comments, am I to get the impression that the KKK has some redeeming feature that outweighs the total mass of what they are?? I could concede that the Bircher's have some very good Libertarian philosophy they talk about.
And at the very least, they have worked very hard to stop/eliminate the Civil Rights Act. Now; is talking the good talk better than acting the bad act is bad?? Or vice versa?
What is most disturbing is how proud Brogdon is about his relationship with these acts (the Bircher's acts). Are you a proud member? And would you stand up and be counted as one of the proud of those acts?
Perhaps you have a point with the KKK. There is an element of black & white there. The way I would say their ideas should be thrown by the wayside is in the fact that I believe the rights of all individuals to live freely should be protected from oppression by other individuals or conspiring groups. Granted there was the hypocrisy of slavery during the founding of this nation, I firmly believe the intent of establishing this nation was so all individuals would be protected from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution has the ability to be amended, and if such instances of individuals being oppressed were left out of our Constitution, they should absolutely be passed on as Amendments which no corrupt lawmakers, courts, and executives would have the power to get around. The KKK's views have no threat of becoming legitimized so long as the Constitution stands in their way protecting individuals.
I don't believe for a second that this country was founded with the intent that all individuals would be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It is obvious who the founding intent was to serve by just reading who was excluded. Well over half the population of the country. Probably close to a 60% super-majority.
Luckily, we have had "reactionary" judges and proactive legislators and executives who finally interpreted the letter of the Constitution from time to time, and amended it, so there has been progress. A great deal of progress. We have a wonderful country. If we can only keep it.
Thought for the day;
There is a tremendous amount of noise and hot air wafted about in recent years about "reactionary judges" and "what a shame it is..." - like it is a bad thing!! The judiciary that was specifically created to interpret and rule on certain issues that may come up from time to time.
Perhaps someone could enlighten, but for the life of me, I have NEVER been able to find anything, anywhere that would even imply in the slightest degree that the judiciary is to be anything BUT reactionary! It seems to me that the whole idea is that they BE reactionary, by definition!
They are supposed to sit there and wait until someone brings forward some question regarding the law. Isn't the the essence of reactionary??
By same token, it seems to me that the other two branches are by definition just the opposite (supposedly) - proactive!
Of course the judges are supposed to react, I don't see how that can be argued.
The legislature passes laws, and the judiciary can react if they pass something unconstitutional or perhaps contradictory to another law.
The executive carries out the laws. The judiciary can react if the executive is carrying out the laws written by the legislature in an unconstitutional manner or manner which is unlawful.
I think the term "reactionary" being thrown at judicial nominees has some other context or meaning than just the simple "Judges react to what is legislated and executed by the other two branches of government". They certainly can't proactively rule on cases that haven't been brought before their courts.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on June 09, 2010, 09:53:39 PM
I think the term "reactionary" being thrown at judicial nominees has some other context or meaning than just the simple "Judges react to what is legislated and executed by the other two branches of government".
Yeah, calling them "reactionary" or "activist" judges can be roughly interpreted as "I didn't like the judge's ruling."
Exactly.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 09, 2010, 08:53:09 PM
Reading so much of this site, ... Bush is invariably good.
You must have not been reading the Forum while W was still in office.
Shortly after I joined the Forum, I thought I had fallen into a den of mostly Democrats and other Liberals. The dynamics change depending on who is interested in what topics.
W T F does any of this have to do with Oklahoma Gubernatorial Candidates?
Quote from: sgrizzle on June 10, 2010, 08:36:52 AM
W T F does any of this have to do with Oklahoma Gubernatorial Candidates?
It's code.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 09, 2010, 09:59:48 PM
Yeah, calling them "reactionary" or "activist" judges can be roughly interpreted as "I didn't like the judge's ruling."
Every once in a rare while, you'll see someone use it to mean that a judge decided to go far beyond the bounds of deciding the case before them and issue sweeping new rules or strike down parts of a law that were not part of the case. I think that's a reasonable use of the phrase "activist judge." It's usually code for something else.
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
Every once in a rare while, you'll see someone use it to mean that a judge decided to go far beyond the bounds of deciding the case before them and issue sweeping new rules or strike down parts of a law that were not part of the case. I think that's a reasonable use of the phrase "activist judge." It's usually code for something else.
It's not really a vague definition at all. It's quite simple.
An activist judge is one that tries to legislate from the bench. . .A judge that is more interested in changing the law than ruling on it. When judges attempt to change the law through judicial action against the established will of the people (the law), this classified an activist judge.
The job description of a judge is to rule, according to the word and intension of written law. For cases where the law is vague or absent, the supreme court has the ability to establish new guidelines (law). Activist judges abuse this power by ruling against existing law, usually drawing precedent from vague constitutional reference. The ruling itself becomes precedent for additional layers of activist ruling.
This gives a judge (and the philosophy he/she embraces) the ability to rule against the will of the people (established legislative law). While it is not illegal for a judge to be activist, it does raise ethical concerns, and concentrates too much unchecked power in one place.
The choice of a judge should be agonizing. This position in government offers the greatest opportunity for abuse of power, and the decisions made by a judge are very difficult to turn.
Remember, everything is quite simple for this guy.
Quote from: waterboy on June 10, 2010, 01:15:58 PM
Remember, everything is quite simple for this guy.
LOL, I just don't see the necessity to constantly redefine things to make them fit into some non-functional paradigm.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 10, 2010, 01:02:44 PM
It's not really a vague definition at all. It's quite simple.
An activist judge is one that tries to legislate from the bench. . .A judge that is more interested in changing the law than ruling on it. When judges attempt to change the law through judicial action against the established will of the people (the law), this classified an activist judge.
The job description of a judge is to rule, according to the word and intension of written law. For cases where the law is vague or absent, the supreme court has the ability to establish new guidelines (law). Activist judges abuse this power by ruling against existing law, usually drawing precedent from vague constitutional reference. The ruling itself becomes precedent for additional layers of activist ruling.
What exactly is "legislating from the bench?" Can you provide examples of activist judges? Can you provide examples of similar cases decided differently by a judge you don't consider "activist?" If you can't, you've just proven the meaninglessness of the term.
The Roberts court has been activist by your definition, if I'm understanding it correctly. So was the Rehnquist court in Bush v. Gore. Or is it not activism when you're overturning law not pleaded in the case before you?
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2010, 12:20:45 PM
Every once in a rare while, you'll see someone use it to mean that a judge decided to go far beyond the bounds of deciding the case before them and issue sweeping new rules or strike down parts of a law that were not part of the case. I think that's a reasonable use of the phrase "activist judge." It's usually code for something else.
The real definition is after watching your first 100 hours of Fox news everybody is an activist judge. I never heard so much complaining about judges until fox news started it.
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2010, 01:46:09 PM
What exactly is "legislating from the bench?" Can you provide examples of activist judges? Can you provide examples of similar cases decided differently by a judge you don't consider "activist?" If you can't, you've just proven the meaninglessness of the term.
The Roberts court has been activist by your definition, if I'm understanding it correctly. So was the Rehnquist court in Bush v. Gore. Or is it not activism when you're overturning law not pleaded in the case before you?
Actually this judicial classification dates back to the 50s. . . and yes it is a political football used by each party. Just as we are all bias to our points of view, all judges can be classified as somewhat activist. The goal is not to take a "single example" and hold that as evidence of Judicial Activism, but to take a body of work and weigh the degree of Judicial Activism applied over a career.
This is precisely why a judge's record is so important. It should paint a picture of the law. When that record as a whole goes against the law, and establishes more
new law than upholding
existing precedent, you have an activist judge.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/kmiec/judicial_activism.htm
Quote from: Trogdor on June 10, 2010, 01:50:29 PM
The real definition is after watching your first 100 hours of Fox news everybody is an activist judge. I never heard so much complaining about judges until fox news started it.
Oh, and Trog. This is the definition given by Fox's Andrew Napolitano, "There is no such thing as an activist judge. An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and honest."
The term was thrown around more by Mr. Harry Reed over the last 8 years than ever before. He really made it a household word. ;D
Talk about a topic going totally over a cliff...
(http://www.phrank.com/images/sh/season1/hgn-11-02-25.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 10, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
This is precisely why a judge's record is so important. It should paint a picture of the law. When that record as a whole goes against the law, and establishes more new law than upholding existing precedent, you have an activist judge.
That's an exceedingly poor definition. If precedent clearly flies in the face of a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, it ought to be thrown out. Even if it has to be done often. Scalia is big on that, it's one of the things I like about him.
I hope when you wrote "when that record as a whole goes against the law" you really meant "when that record as a whole goes against the Constitution".
I don't get what you mean by "new" law created by judges. The only thing I can think of that comes close is injunctive relief requiring specific performance?
In any event, it sounds like you don't consider the judiciary to be equal to the other branches of Government.
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
That's an exceedingly poor definition. If precedent clearly flies in the face of a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, it ought to be thrown out. Even if it has to be done often. Scalia is big on that, it's one of the things I like about him.
I hope when you wrote "when that record as a whole goes against the law" you really meant "when that record as a whole goes against the Constitution".
I don't get what you mean by "new" law created by judges. The only thing I can think of that comes close is injunctive relief requiring specific performance?
In any event, it sounds like you don't consider the judiciary to be equal to the other branches of Government.
Good, you've touched on the "branch equality" topic. The constitution provides for three separate but equal branches of government--legislative, executive, and judicial. Together, these branches make (Legislative Branch), execute (Executive Branch), and interpret (Judicial Branch) the laws. They have equal, but very different powers.
The President
cannot make a law without the consent of congress, and that law must also be deemed constitutional by the supreme court. Congress cannot make a law without a signature from the president and that law can also be constitutionally tested by the supreme court. But. . . an activist judge can rule on a case that establishes, by judicial precedent, the law without the consent of congress, or a signature from the president. This gives the Judicial branch more power than the other branches. It is thus the responsibility of a judge to exercise significant restraint.
The term may date back to the '50s, but the act goes back to the very beginning of the country.
And appointments of judges have only ever been political footballs.
What is truly incredible to me is how well this whole mish-mash has worked for the history of the country! Especially given the way we started.
Pretty wonderful most of the time!!
Thanks for the 10th grade political science summary, Gas. However, I doubt your understanding of law is any deeper than that and I'm surprised Guido is letting you get away with such simplicity. All you left out is the phrase, "I'm no lawyer, but...." He must be squirming at least.
My take, though, is simple as well. They aren't just equal powers, they are checks and balances of power. Those checks and balances are always in struggle. When one area overpowers another, one or both of the others will react. Thus it is true they are all reactionary, but not in a bad way.
The executive branch also "creates" law with many clever uses of administrative power. I seem to remember white papers, policy statements, lack of enforcement policies etc that in effect counteract the intent of the legislative bodies' powers and in effect expand the executive branch. How else could we have fought so many undeclared wars?
The legislative branch undoubtedly has its own little quirks that allow sidestepping of their only function which is to budget, create law and directly represent their constituents. Yet, we often go without budgets, they often use parliamentary devices like filibustering to avoid votes and they convene to investigate alleged wrongdoing just like an executive branch might be expected to do. They pass laws to appease the people, then refuse to appropriate funds to make them operable. Best I remember they have the power to declare war. Last happened in the early 1940's, right?
Yet, all the right can do is talk about judges creating law. Its as meaningless as "welfare mothers". The Fox guy was dead on when he described it as judgemental (ha! a pun!). Totally meaningless red herring.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 10, 2010, 03:28:54 PM
But. . . an activist judge can rule on a case that establishes, by judicial precedent, the law without the consent of congress, or a signature from the president. This gives the Judicial branch more power than the other branches. It is thus the responsibility of a judge to exercise significant restraint.
So ... if you were a Supreme Court judge, would you have exercised such restraint in a landmark case such as Brown vs. Board of Education?
Guys, start a new thread this is bad even by TNF standards for thread drift
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2010, 09:33:56 PM
Guys, start a new thread this is bad even by TNF standards for thread drift
But a good kind of drift ... like taking a side road or something.
I find it interesting that someone so aligned with the idea that people should always look out for #1 would be opposed to courts doing just that, leaving the other equal branches of government to deal with it if and when they overstep their bounds. If it works so well for capitalism, why not for government?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2010, 09:33:56 PM
Guys, start a new thread this is bad even by TNF standards for thread drift
Might be easier to just rename the thread.
So, who is running for governor this week?
I should probably have enlisted in the effort.