including Oklahoma. Labor Commissioner Lloyd Fields,
State Senate President Pro-Tem Mike Morgan
and House Democratic Leader Danny Morgan will work on Edwards campaign in Oklahoma.
Monday, December 31, 2007
John Edwards Names Oklahoma Campaign Advisers
Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards has named state advisers in states that will hold primaries on February 5,
including Oklahoma. Labor Commissioner Lloyd Fields,
State Senate President Pro-Tem Mike Morgan
and House Democratic Leader Danny Morgan will work on Edwards campaign in Oklahoma.
including Oklahoma. Labor Commissioner Lloyd Fields,
State Senate President Pro-Tem Mike Morgan
and House Democratic Leader Danny Morgan will work on Edwards campaign in Oklahoma.
Poll Results Show Public Continues to Support Immigration Law
State Rep. Randy Terrill, a Moore Republican who authored Oklahoma’s new immigration reform law (House Bill 1804), issued the following statement today in response to a new Tulsa World/KOTV poll on the issue.“It is absolutely phenomenal that immigration is tied with education as the top issue in the minds of Oklahoma voters, especially given all the fear-mongering, trumped-up negative publicity, and over-the-top rhetoric from the pro-illegal-alien lobby and its allies who would very much like to see HB 1804 either weakened or repealed.
“It is even more remarkable that HB 1804 enjoys nearly two-to-one support from those surveyed who said it either will have, or has already had, a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat positive’ impact and also indicate they favor ‘even stronger legislation.’
“This poll makes it clear that the majority of likely Oklahoma voters not only want HB 1804 enforced, but actually want it strengthened.
“Other polling data I have seen shows that when likely Oklahoma voters are asked about the specific provisions of HB 1804 – such as those barring illegal aliens from receiving state driver’s licenses and taxpayer funded health care and welfare benefits –support goes far higher.
“The Tulsa World / KOTV 6 poll's internal numbers also show that concern about illegal immigration and support for HB 1804, as well as the desire to strengthen it, is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a bipartisan issue.
“That's because cracking down on illegal immigration is not about left and right. It’s about right and wrong, respect for the rule of law and upholding our state and national sovereignty. It’s also about a group of public officials doing exactly what it is the people elected and expect them to do.
“Since its passage, HB 1804 has become model legislation that has been or will be introduced in identical or similar form in more than a dozen states. Furthermore, I believe that more than two dozen other state legislatures may follow Oklahoma’s example and consider similar laws next year. That's what is ultimately at stake and why knocking HB 1804 has become such an obsession for a few.”
Open Letter to the Iowa GOP – Choose Wisely, Choose Hunter
Open Letter to the Iowa GOP – Choose Wisely, Choose Hunter
Guest Editorial
Alexander J. Madison - December 31, 2007
Dear Iowegians,
Every presidential election season, your state has the opportunity to help shape the election going forward. Unfortunately, too many times, you have selected a dud during the Iowa Caucuses. In 1976, you picked Gerald Ford, proponent of the ERA and abortion rights, over a very conservative Ronald Reagan. In 1980, you chose a very moderate Bush over Reagan. And twice you picked a milquetoast named Bob Dole. Granted, the choices are sometimes between dud and duddier, but this year is different. This year you have a chance to select a rock-ribbed conservative Reaganite to make up for not choosing the original Reaganite when you had the chance. The name is Duncan Hunter.
Congressman Duncan Hunter is a representative from California's 52nd legislative district.
Mr. Hunter put his college career on hold to volunteer with the 173rd Airborne Rangers to fight the communists in Vietnam. Like Reagan, Hunter believes that war was not only very winnable, but was indeed a "noble cause". And the killing fields that followed our departure from that conflict are a bold testament to their vision over the head-in-the-sand lack of vision (which continues to this day) from the defeatist democrats and RINOs.Duncan Hunter also entered office with Reagan in 1981, at the ripe old age of 32. He immediately was able to join the Armed Services Committee in Congress, where he has remained to this day, as former Chairmen, and current Ranking Republican. It was in large part due to Mr. Hunter's efforts, teaming with folks like Jack Kemp and Henry Hyde, that Reagan was able to ramrod our historic military buildup through Congress in the 80s, which revitalized every branch of our Armed Services. Jack Kemp even credits Hunter with being the go-to guy for strong-arming the very controversial 'Star Wars' Strategic Defense Initiative through the House. The results of that persistence and vision is paying off in spades, despite the howls of leftists worldwide, as we today have working missile defense systems either in field, or soon to be fielded; including laser based systems for which Reagan was mercilessly ridiculed by the ignorant 'academics' and the press. Hunter was and is perhaps the staunchest anti-communist to sit in Congress. He was the leader most responsible, aside from Reagan, for stemming the commie-creep in Central America during the 1980s, and his disdain for communism has never ebbed.
Duncan Hunter is the ONLY candidate that realizes what China is up to, both militarily with its rapid armament increases, and economically, with its long term strategy to undermine the United States' industrial base. Hunter is dead set against the 'one-way', idiotic trade deal we have with the Chinese, will put a quick end to further technology transfers to the communist nation, and will build up our own military to the point that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be nothing short of a quick suicide mission for communism. All the other candidates tip toe around the issue of China. Hunter plans to step on their throat.
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment, lowering taxes, fighting the ACLU and political correctness, standing firm against the gay agenda, and sweeping out useless bureaucrats and bureaucracies from the federal government, Duncan Hunter is the only choice.
Unlike John McCain and Mitt Romney, Hunter won't find anything in the Constitution to justify supporting a ban on 'assault weapons' or 'cheap handguns'. Hunter has a perfect lifetime record with the NRA and the Gun Owners of America. Both Mitt and McCain are liberals in this arena.
Unlike Fred Thompson, Hunter won't have to lie about previous pro-choice sympathies. Unlike Fred, Hunter has a perfectly consistent record on the life of the unborn, and has sponsored legislation for many, many years to give full constitutional protection to the unborn – legislation that Fred does not support.
Unlike McCain and Thompson, Hunter certainly will not run roughshod over the 1st Amendment for the sake of 'campaign finance reform'. And Hunter will work to ditch the last vestiges of McCain-Feingold-Thompson, if the courts don't do it first.
Unlike Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, Hunter did not and does not buy into the global warming nonsense in any way, shape or form. The only guarantee we have of avoiding a binding, sovereignty usurping, international treaty on global warming is to place a President in power who does not believe the GW alarmism and does not believe in sovereignty usurping international treaties.
Unlike Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Hunter does not have some convoluted explanation for why the socialized medicine experiments in Massachusetts (RomneyCare) and Arkansas (ARKids) are a good thing that deserves replication nationally. Indeed, Hunter wants to get government out of the way and reduce the regulations on health insurance by killing off mandates and regulations.
Unlike Mike Huckabee, Hunter will not be contemplating how to mandate and enforce a nationwide ban on smoking in public places, nor will he be scheming to introduce more arts and music and healthy snacks into the nation's public schools. The NEA, who apparently like Mr. Huckabee, despise Congressman Hunter – a genuine supporter of school choice.
Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Hunter does not have to pretend he is a conservative. A man who sued 26 firearms manufacturers to essentially put them out of business has no business seeking the office of the Presidency on the GOP ticket, unless gun control, abortion rights, gay 'rights', and eminent domain abuse are now part of the GOP platform.
Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, Hunter does not have to lie through his teeth when it comes to his record on illegal immigration. While it is hilarious to see these guys try to 'Out –Tancredo Tancredo' on the issue, only one guy truly does out-Tancredo the Colorado Congressman. While Duncan Hunter has sponsored or cosponsored 85 bills and amendments to stop illegal immigration in this country dead in its tracks, not one of these others lifted a finger during their careers, and range from bad to worse on the issue. While 'The Road to Des Moines' and last springs citizen revolt led these supposed conservatives to finally see the light – at least in rhetoric, Hunter has been fighting the RINOS and dems on this for 27 years. Hunter wrote the border fence bill (recently defanged by the RINOS), and Hunter is the ONLY one who has vowed to actively deport those currently squatting here illegally.
And finally, Duncan Hunter is the most experienced in warfare, defense systems, foreign policy and the security of our nation. If we are intent on defeating the islamists ASAP- without worrying about offending anyone, keeping terrorists out of our country, and rising to meet the future threats posed by the China-Russia-Iran-Venezuela axis, then we better elect a Reaganite this time around.
If not, we may have to put up with an idiot who thinks we need to close Gitmo and end waterboarding because the world disapproves (Huckabee, McCain), or someone who thinks we just need to be more humble and accommodating on the world stage (Huckabee), or someone who can't figure out that enriching China is a fools errand (Fred, Mitt, McCain), or someone who has no clue about our military needs and capabilities and would not know an IED from an IUD (Rudy, Huckabee, Mitt).
The choice is clearer than it has been since 1980. Don't let history pass you by….again.
Most Sincerely,
Alexander J. Madison
Pushing for a bipartisan approach
Pushing for a bipartisan approach
OU to host political leaders Jan. 7
By Andy Rieger
Transcript Managing Editor
A bipartisan group of a dozen or more influential Democrats and Republicans will meet on the University of Oklahoma campus Jan. 7 in an attempt to encourage the major presidential candidates to refocus the campaign debate from one of partisan squabbling to national unity.
Participants were invited by OU President David L. Boren, a former U.S. Senator and Oklahoma Governor, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Guests include former members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries and respected political consultants.
"Our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad," according to the invitation letter signed by Boren and Nunn. "Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion of America's power of leadership and example."
"The next president of the United States will be faced with what has been described as a "gathering storm" both at home and abroad. Serious near term challenges include the lack of a national strategy to deal with our fiscal challenges, our educational challenges, our energy challenges, our environmental challenges, as well as the dangerous turbulence triggered by the current financial crisis," the letter states.
Former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, is among the invitees. However, Boren said the meeting was not an attempt to bring attention to a potential Bloomberg candidacy.
"Bloomberg is just an invitee," Boren said Sunday afternoon. "It's not a Bloomberg for president meeting."
The billionaire Bloomberg, a one-time Democrat who switched to the GOP to run for mayor of New York City and now is an independent, continues to attract attention with his travels and speeches but denies he is running for president.
Other invited guests besides Nunn are former Senators Bob Graham, Alan Dixon William S. Cohen, Charles Robb and presidential candidate and Senator Gary Hart. Top Republicans invited include Sen. Chuck Hagel, former GOP chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and an OU faculty member, will also participate.
Other guests staying in Norman are Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower and David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency.
Many of the invited participants served with Boren during the OU president's time in the U.S. Senate. He has worked with many of them in a bipartisan way. At OU, Boren has spoken out often about the gridlock which has gripped the national's Capitol.
"I look at this as an attempt at public service," he said.
The meeting, to be held at Boyd House with a panel discussion and press conference at Holmberg Hall, is purposely being announced before the Iowa caucuses this week."We wanted to be able to announce it before the caucuses to avoid any implication we were reacting to what happens in Iowa," Boren said.
"I am a firm believer in the two-party system but if the candidates don't refocus and pledge to create a unity government, then I'd like to see a cabinet made up of half Democrats and half Republicans," Boren said.
The group has been circulating a draft statement. In Norman, they will meet informally on the evening of Jan. 6 and then formally most of the morning of Jan. 7.
An 11 a.m. press conference and panel discussion is planned. Boren said the panel discussion will be open to the public and faculty, staff and students will be notified through e-mail.
HOO-AH: Gen. Petraeus's Letter to the Troops
Letter to the Troops
Gen. David Petraeus, 12.31.2007
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:
As 2007 draws to a close, you should look back with pride on what you, your fellow troopers, our Iraqi partners, and Iraqi Coalition civilians have achieved in 2007. A year ago, Iraq was racked by horrific violence and on the brink of civil war. Now, levels of violence and civilians and military casualties are significantly reduced and hope has been rekindled in many Iraqi communities. To be sure, the progress is reversible and there is much more to be done. Nonetheless, the hard-fought accomplishments of 2007 have been substantial, and I want to thank each of you for the contributions you made to them.
In response to the challenges that faced Iraq a year ago, we and our Iraqi partners adopted a new approach. We increased our focus on securing the Iraqi people and, in some cases, delayed transition of tasks to Iraqi forces. Additional U.S. and Georgian forces were deployed to theater, the tours of U.S. unites were extended, and Iraqi forces conducted a surge of their own, generating well over 100,000 more Iraqi police and soldiers during the year so that they, too, had additional forces to execute the new approach. In places like Ramadi, Baqubah, Arab Jabour, and Baghdad, you and our Iraqi brothers fought--often house by house, block by block, and neighborhood by neighborhood--to wrest sanctuaries away from Al Qaeda-Iraq, to disrupt extremist militia elements, and to rid the streets of mafia-like criminals. Having cleared areas, you worked with Iraqis to retain them--establishing outposts in the areas we were securing, developing Iraqi Security Forces, and empowering locals to help our efforts. This approach has not been easy. It has required steadfastness in the conduct of tough offensive operations, creative solutions to the myriad problems on the ground, and persistence over the course of many months and during countless trying situations. Through it all, you have proven equal to every task, continually demonstrating an impressive ability to conduct combat and stability operations in an exceedingly complex environment.
Your accomplishments have given the Iraqi people new confidence and prompted many citizens to reject terror and confront those who practice it. As the months passed in 2007, in fact, the tribal awakening that began in Al Anbar Province spread to other parts of the country. Emboldened by improving security and tired of indiscriminate violence, extremist ideology, oppressive practices, and criminal activity, Iraqis increasingly rejected Al Qaeda-Iraq and rogue militia elements. Over time, the desire of Iraqis to contribute to their own security has manifested itself in citizens volunteering for the police, the Army, and concerned local citizen programs. It has been reflected in citizens providing information that has helped us find far more than double the number of arms and weapons caches we found last year. And it has been apparent in Iraqi communities now supporting their local security forces.
As a result of your hard work and that of our Iraqi comrades-in-arms--and with the support of the local populace in many areas--we have seen significant improvements in the security situation. The number of attacks per week is down some 60 percent from a peak in June of this year to a level last seen consistently in the early summer of 2005. With fewer attacks, we are also seeing significantly reduced loss of life. The number of civilian deaths is down by some 75 percent since its height a year ago, dropping to a level not seen since the beginning of 2006. And the number of Coalition losses is down substantially as well. We remain mindful that the past year's progress has been purchased through the sacrifice and selfless service of all those involved and that the new Iraq must still contend with innumerable enemies and obstacles. Al Qaeda-Iraq has been significantly degraded, but it remains capable of horrific bombings. Militia extremists have been disrupted, but they retain influence in many areas. Criminals have been apprehended, but far too many still roam Iraqi streets and intimidate local citizens and Iraqi officials. We and our Iraqi partners will have to deal with each of these challenges in the New Year to keep the situation headed in the right direction.
While the progress in a number of areas is fragile, the security improvements have significantly changed the situation in many parts of Iraq. It is now imperative that we take advantage of these improvements by looking beyond the security arena and helping Iraqi military and political leaders as they develop solutions in other areas as well, solutions they can sustain over time. At the tactical level, this means an increasing focus on helping not just Iraqi Security Forces--with whom we must partner in all that we do--but also helping Iraqi governmental organizations as they endeavor to restore basic services, to create employment opportunities, to revitalize local markets, to refurbish schools, to spur local economic activity, and to keep locals involved in contributing to local security. We will have to do all of this, of course, while continuing to draw down our forces, thinning our presence, and gradually handing over responsibilities to our Iraqi partners. Meanwhile, at the national level, we will focus on helping the Iraqi Government integrate local volunteers into the Iraqi Security Forces and other employment, develop greater ministerial capacity and capability, aid displaced persons as they return, and, most importantly, take the all-important political and economic actions needed to exploit the opportunity provided by the gains in the security arena.
The pace of progress on important political actions to this point has been slower than Iraqi leaders had hoped. Still, there have been some important steps taken in recent months. Iraq's leaders reached agreement on the Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation with the United States, which lays the groundwork for an enduring relationship between our nations. The United Nations Security Council approved Iraq's request for a final renewal of the resolution that authorizes the Coalition to operate in Iraq. Iraq's leaders passed an important Pension Law that not only extends retirement benefits to Iraqis previously left out but also represents the first of what we hope will be additional measures fostering national reconciliation. And Iraq's leaders have debated at length a second reconciliation-related measure, the Accountability and Justice Bill (the de-Ba'athification Reform Law), as well as the 2008 National Budget, both which likely will be brought up for a vote in early 2008. Even so, all Iraqi participants recognize that much more must be done politically to put their country on an irreversible trajectory to national reconciliation and sustainable economic development. We will, needless to say, work closely with our Embassy teammates to support the Iraq Government as it strives to take advantage of the improved security environment by pursing political and economic progress.
The New Year will bring many changes. Substantial force rotations and adjustments already underway will continue. One Army brigade combat team and a Marine Expeditionary Unit have already redeployed without replacement. In the coming months, four additional brigades and two Marine battalions will follow suit. Throughout that time, we will continue to adapt to the security situation as it evolves. And in the midst of all the changes, we and our Iraqi partners will strive to maintain the momentum, to press the fight, and to pursue Iraq's enemies relentlessly. Solutions to many of the tough problems will continue to be found at your level, together with local Iraqi leaders and with your Iraqi Security Force partners, in company and battalion areas of operation and in individual neighborhoods an towns. As you and your Iraqi partners turn concepts into reality, additional progress will emerge slowly and fitfully. Over time, we will gradually see fewer bad days and accumulate more good days, good weeks, and good months.
The way ahead will not be easy. Inevitably, there will be more tough days and tough weeks. Unforeseen challenges will emerge. And success will require continued hard work, commitment, and initiative from all involved. As we look to the future, however, we should remember how far we have come in the past year. Thanks to the tireless efforts and courageous actions of the Iraqi people, Iraq's political and military leaders, the Iraqi Security Forces, and each of you, a great deal has been achieved in 2007. Thus, as we enter a new year, we and our Iraqi partners will have important accomplishments and a newfound sense of hope on which we can build.
As always, all or your leaders, our fellow citizens back home, and I deeply appreciate the dedication, professionalism, commitment, and courage you display on a daily basis. It remains the greatest of honors to serve with each of you in this critical endeavor.
Sincerely,
David H. Petraeus
Quote of the Day...
"If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior."-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Presentation of the Bipartisan Group on Jan 7 - Open to the public
There will be a presentation of the 'Bipartisan Group' in Holmberg Hall on the OU campus (Norman), 11:00 to noon on 7 January. Open to the public.
Gathering to Discuss Independent White House Run
Gathering to Discuss Independent White House Run"Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to 'go beyond tokenism' in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president."
"Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman."
December 30, 2007
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for PresidentBy SAM ROBERTS
Published: December 31, 2007
Published: December 31, 2007
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.
On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.
Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”
Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.
And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.
Bloomberg aides have studied the process for starting independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.
The filing deadline for the petitions, which must be signed by approximately 74,000 Texas voters who did not participate in the state’s Democratic or Republican primaries, is May 12.
Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.
Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”
“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.
Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.
But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.
Still, the mayor said this month at a news conference, “Last I looked — and I’m not a candidate — but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It’s most states are winners take all. The popular vote assigns electoral votes to the candidate, and I don’t think it says in there that you have to be a member of one party or another.”
The key players — virtually the only players — in Mr. Bloomberg’s embryonic campaign are three of his deputy mayors, Kevin Sheekey, Edward Skyler and Patricia E. Harris. Another aide, Patrick Brennan, who was the political director of Mr. Bloomberg’s 2005 re-election campaign, resigned as commissioner of the city’s Community Assistance Unit earlier this year to spend more time exploring the mayor’s possible national campaign.
One concern among Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle is whether a loss would label him a spoiler — “a rich Ralph Nader” — who cost a more viable candidate the presidency in a watershed political year. One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.
“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.
The mayor was asked last week at a news conference whether a Bloomberg campaign would cost the Democratic or Republican nominee more votes.
“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”
Sam Waterston, the actor whose former co-star on “Law and Order,” Fred D. Thompson, is a Republican presidential candidate, is a founder of Unity08. That group also hopes to advance a nonpartisan ticket, and Mr. Waterston says the mayor is often mentioned on the group’s Web site as a prospective nominee.
“If he formally embraced Unity08’s principal goals of a bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket — which he’s almost in a position to do all by himself, having been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an independent — and of an administration dedicated to ending partisanship within itself and in Washington, then it’s hard to think of anyone better placed to win Unity08’s support if he sought it,” Mr. Waterston said. “And, of course, there’s nothing that says Unity08 couldn’t draft him.”
Some associates said that after six years as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was itching for a new challenge — much like he was in 2000 when, as chief executive of Bloomberg L.P., he was flirting with running for mayor.
But Mr. Bloomberg will also have to weigh several intangibles: Can he run for president and serve as mayor of a combustible metropolis simultaneously for eight months? (He believes he can, and would not resign as mayor to run.) Does he want to be president badly enough to sacrifice his zealously guarded personal privacy? (He’s not completely convinced.)
Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.
“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.
One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000.
Diane Cardwell and Raymond Hernandez contributed reporting.
A Bipartisan Invitation
A Bipartisan Invitation
The text of an invitation letter to a gathering at the University of Oklahoma next week where a group of Democrats and Republicans, will discuss issues they want the major-party candidates to address.
December 18, 2007
Thank you for agreeing to join us to exchange ideas about constructive ways in which we might help stimulate a meaningful debate during the current presidential campaign on the important challenges facing our nation.
Our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion of America's power of leadership and example.
The next president of the United States will be faced with what has been described as a "gathering storm" both at home and abroad. Serious near term challenges include the lack of a national strategy to deal with our fiscal challenges, our educational challenges, our energy challenges, our environmental challenges, as well as the dangerous turbulence triggered by the current financial crisis.
In the national security arena, our nation must rebuild and reconfigure our military forces. We must develop a viable and sustainable approach to nuclear proliferation and terrorism and greatly strengthen our intelligence and diplomatic capabilities. Most importantly, we must begin to restore our standing, influence, and credibility in the world. Today, we are a house divided. We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available - without regard to political party - to help lead our nation.
To say the obvious, the presidential debates thus far have produced little national discussion of these and other fundamental issues and plans to address them. If this pattern continues through this important national election, it will produce neither a national consensus for governing nor a president who can successfully tackle these threats to our nation's future. We understand the rough and tumble part of the political process, but without a modicum of civility and respect in our debates, forming a bipartisan consensus on the major issues after the election will be virtually impossible.
With these deep concerns in mind, we will meet over breakfast on the morning of January 7, at 7:30 a.m. at the president's home at the University of Oklahoma and continue our discussion until 11:00 a.m. From 11:00 a.m. until noon, we will hold a public panel discussion - open to students and the media - and conclude with a press conference on the OU campus.
In addition to the opportunity for each participant to make a brief statement at the public panel discussion, we hope to release a very brief joint statement - perhaps no longer than one page - of major shared principles. We will work on that proposed statement and circulate it in advance for your input so that a draft can be placed before us for discussion at the meeting on January 7. Please send comments to us as soon as possible about items and ideas that you feel should be included in our joint statement. Again, we will pool the ideas and prepare a brief draft which we will circulate to you before the meeting.
Hopefully most of us will arrive Sunday evening, January 6, in time for an informal dinner where we can begin our discussion. In deference to the busy schedules of the participants, we plan to make this a short meeting. We will be able to depart by 12:00 p.m. on Monday. Overnight accommodations have been arranged for all participants in an inn very close to the president's house at OU where our private meeting will take place. We are working to arrange private air transportation to and from Norman for participants. We have arranged a plane to originate in New York on Sunday afternoon with stops in Washington and Atlanta, arriving in Oklahoma by 7:00 p.m. The same plane will reverse this route on Monday.
Our hope is that our meeting will help begin a national dialogue on the critical issues facing our nation and the world. We understand that the news of this event will come out before January 7, but ideally we would like to get through the holidays before discussing it with the media. Approximately 15 of us have agreed to participate and we will send you a complete list in the next several days. We thank you for your plans to participate.
Sincerely,
David Boren
Sam Nunn
Boren, Nunn call meeting to challenge candidates
Boren, Nunn call meeting to challenge candidates
John Greiner
Capitol Bureau
John Greiner
Capitol Bureau
NORMAN — University of Oklahoma President David L. Boren and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia are convening a bipartisan group of nationally prominent political figures next Sunday and Monday Jan. 6 and 7 to challenge presidential candidates to focus on America’s serious issues.
Those planning to attend include New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a possible independent candidate for president; former Democrat U.S. Sen. Charles S. Robb of Virginia; Bill Brock, former Republican Party chairman and former Tennessee U.S. Senator; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; and former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart, who also served in the U.S. Senate.
Those invited will arrive in Norman Sunday evening and will first meet informally.
They will meet again Monday, Jan. 7, and then go to Holmberg Hall on the OU campus for a public panel discussion — open to students and the media — and conclude with a press conference on the OU campus, Boren said.
“This is not a Bloomberg for president meeting,” said Boren, a former U.S. Senator.
But, if those running for president don’t begin talking about bringing the country together, it could create an opening for an independent candidacy, Boren said.
“We used to work together across party lines and we used to cooperate with each other,” Boren told the Associated Press of his relationships with current and former senators who plan to attend. “It is a message to the two parties: Please rise to the occasion. If you don't, there is always a possibility out there of an independent.
“We need statesmanship, not politics. The meeting in itself implies there could be other possibilities,” than a two-party contest.
However, Boren told The Oklahoman, “This does not signal my re-entry into politics. I will stay where I am. I don’t intend to run for anything.”
Some attending the meeting intend to support their party’s nominee for president, Boren said.
The meeting’s purpose probably is best described in the letter Boren and Nunn sent to those who are coming to Norman.
“Today we are a house divided. We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available — without regard to political party — to help lead our nation,” they wrote.
The issues Boren and Nunn believe should be discussed in the presidential campaign include a national strategy to deal with the nation’s fiscal challenges and educational, energy and environmental challenges as well as the “dangerous turbulence triggered by the current financial crisis.”
In national security, America must rebuild and reconfigure its military forces, develop a viable and sustainable approach to nuclear proliferation and terrorism and greatly strengthen its intelligence and diplomatic capabilities, their letter said.
“Most importantly, we must begin to restore our standing, influence and credibility in the world,” they said.
Boren said America’s approval rating in the world is at its lowest level in history.
“Cooperating with the rest of the world is important to our economy and national security,” he said
Boren and Nunn were friends while serving in the U.S. Senate.
Boren, a Democrat, was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Nunn, also a Democrat, was chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Boren, former Governor of Oklahoma, resigned from the U.S. Senate in 1994 to become OU’s president.
Others who plan to attend the meeting are: William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine who later was Secretary of Defense in President Clinton’s administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democrat senator from Illinois; former Florida Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Graham; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; Susan Eisenhower, political consultant; Jack Danforth, former U.S. Senator from Missouri and former Ambassador to the United Nations: Edward Perkins, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican and former New Jersey Governor; and Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.
Boren and Nunn said the nation’s political system is at the least, badly bent, and many think it is broken at a time when America must lead “boldly at home and abroad.”
“Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion of America’s power of leadership and example,” their letter said.
Boren said he called Nunn about convening this group after reading a poll where a majority of Americans said they didn’t believe our future would be as good as in the past.
“They sense our greatness is eroding,” Boren said.
He’s hopeful that the presidential candidates will rise to the occasion and put the country first, ahead of party.
Contributing: The Associated Press
Those planning to attend include New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a possible independent candidate for president; former Democrat U.S. Sen. Charles S. Robb of Virginia; Bill Brock, former Republican Party chairman and former Tennessee U.S. Senator; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; and former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart, who also served in the U.S. Senate.
Those invited will arrive in Norman Sunday evening and will first meet informally.
They will meet again Monday, Jan. 7, and then go to Holmberg Hall on the OU campus for a public panel discussion — open to students and the media — and conclude with a press conference on the OU campus, Boren said.
“This is not a Bloomberg for president meeting,” said Boren, a former U.S. Senator.
But, if those running for president don’t begin talking about bringing the country together, it could create an opening for an independent candidacy, Boren said.
“We used to work together across party lines and we used to cooperate with each other,” Boren told the Associated Press of his relationships with current and former senators who plan to attend. “It is a message to the two parties: Please rise to the occasion. If you don't, there is always a possibility out there of an independent.
“We need statesmanship, not politics. The meeting in itself implies there could be other possibilities,” than a two-party contest.
However, Boren told The Oklahoman, “This does not signal my re-entry into politics. I will stay where I am. I don’t intend to run for anything.”
Some attending the meeting intend to support their party’s nominee for president, Boren said.
The meeting’s purpose probably is best described in the letter Boren and Nunn sent to those who are coming to Norman.
“Today we are a house divided. We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available — without regard to political party — to help lead our nation,” they wrote.
The issues Boren and Nunn believe should be discussed in the presidential campaign include a national strategy to deal with the nation’s fiscal challenges and educational, energy and environmental challenges as well as the “dangerous turbulence triggered by the current financial crisis.”
In national security, America must rebuild and reconfigure its military forces, develop a viable and sustainable approach to nuclear proliferation and terrorism and greatly strengthen its intelligence and diplomatic capabilities, their letter said.
“Most importantly, we must begin to restore our standing, influence and credibility in the world,” they said.
Boren said America’s approval rating in the world is at its lowest level in history.
“Cooperating with the rest of the world is important to our economy and national security,” he said
Boren and Nunn were friends while serving in the U.S. Senate.
Boren, a Democrat, was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Nunn, also a Democrat, was chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Boren, former Governor of Oklahoma, resigned from the U.S. Senate in 1994 to become OU’s president.
Others who plan to attend the meeting are: William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine who later was Secretary of Defense in President Clinton’s administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democrat senator from Illinois; former Florida Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Graham; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; Susan Eisenhower, political consultant; Jack Danforth, former U.S. Senator from Missouri and former Ambassador to the United Nations: Edward Perkins, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican and former New Jersey Governor; and Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.
Boren and Nunn said the nation’s political system is at the least, badly bent, and many think it is broken at a time when America must lead “boldly at home and abroad.”
“Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion of America’s power of leadership and example,” their letter said.
Boren said he called Nunn about convening this group after reading a poll where a majority of Americans said they didn’t believe our future would be as good as in the past.
“They sense our greatness is eroding,” Boren said.
He’s hopeful that the presidential candidates will rise to the occasion and put the country first, ahead of party.
Contributing: The Associated Press
Bipartisan Group to meet at University of Oklahoma for Independent Bid
"I'm an American before I'm a Republican," said former senator John Danforth (Mo.). He is unimpressed with his party's presidential candidates. (By Craig Sands For The Washington Post)
Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page A04
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
Boren, who will host the meeting at the university, where he is president, said: "It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected mayor of New York as a Republican, left the GOP this past summer to become an independent. While disclaiming any plan to run for president in 2008, he has continued to fuel speculation by traveling widely and speaking out on both domestic and international issues. The mayor, a billionaire many times over, presumably could self-finance even a late-starting candidacy.
"As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Stu Loeser. "He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders."
Until plans for this meeting were disclosed, the most concrete public move toward any kind of independent candidacy was by Unity08, a group planning an online nominating convention to pick either an independent candidate or a ticket combining a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors, an eclectic mix of consultants who have worked for candidates including Jimmy Carter (D) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), have not aligned with a specific prospect.
Now, some people with high-level political and governmental credentials are moving to put muscle behind the effort. A letter from Nunn and Boren sent to those attending the Jan. 7 session said that "our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example."
At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.
"Today, we are a house divided," the letter said. "We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available -- without regard to political party -- to help lead our nation."
Boren said he and Nunn, who often collaborated when they headed the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees, respectively, issued invitations to other moderates with whom they had served, and found that almost everyone was willing to come.
"Our hope is that the candidates will respond with their own specific ideas about how to pull the country together, not just aim at getting out their own polarized base," Boren said. "But we will have a couple months before the nominees will be known, and we can judge in that time what their response will be."
Boren said the meeting is being announced in advance of Thursday's Iowa caucuses "because we don't want anyone to think this was a response to any particular candidate or candidates." He said the nation needs a "government of national unity" to overcome its partisan divisions in a time of national challenge he likened to that faced by Great Britain during World War II.
"Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time," Boren said. "Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting."
Danforth said he remains a Republican but finds little cause for optimism among the current GOP candidates. "My party is appealing to a real meanness," he said in an interview, "and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I'm an American before I'm a Republican." Danforth has also written critically about the impact of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.
Cohen said his emphasis will be on the issues rather than on a candidacy, adding that he and Nunn will co-sponsor a series of "dialogues" on key topics, aiming to build planks for a possible consensus platform for the next president.
"The important goal all of us share," Cohen said, "is to get government back to the center."
Nunn, for his part, described Bloomberg as "an enormously capable man" but said: "I've made no decision who I'm going to support. Most of us hope to shape the Republican or Democratic side's response, but who knows where this is going to go? I think the country's at the tipping point, and it's going to take a lot more understanding by the electorate for anybody to be able to lead."
A Look Back for Lawmakers... (Part 2)
Published: December 27, 2007 05:02 pm
Legislators weigh in on 2007
By Jaclyn Houghton
CNHI News Service
OKLAHOMA CITY — What challenges did you face as a freshman legislator this year?
“The biggest challenge for me as a freshman is learning the ropes … the little ways you get stuff done.” --- Rep. John Enns, R-Enid
“For any freshman legislator there’s a pretty steep learning curve in learning how many eyes get to see everything … here you are as a freshman trying to convince 100 minds in the House and 48 minds in the Senate that it’s a good idea.” --- Rep. Dennis Johnson, R-Duncan
“The biggest challenge, I would say, is getting a consensus with House members on House Bill 1804 (the immigration bill). What I was disappointed with was the veto of tort reform.” --- Rep. Charlie Joyner, R-Midwest City
“The biggest challenge was knowing what to expect, especially from a time management perspective.” --- Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie
“There’s a huge learning curve. Although I studied political science and went to law school, it’s so much more than drafting a piece of legislation and hoping it gets passed.” --- Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City
“I think, in particular this year, the biggest challenge is trying to set the groundwork of the next 100 years for our state’s history … sometimes you get caught up in the moment, but really you have to have a long-term view of what you’re doing.” --- Rep. Scott Martin, R-Norman
“My biggest challenge is how much reading is involved. Whenever you have to read 15 to 25 bills a day it becomes a huge challenge to get them read. My other biggest surprise is how many other legislators don’t read them.” --- Rep. Brian Renegar, D-McAlester
“Coming from just a workingman background, just the (understanding the) legalese … they make the very simple complicated as far as legislation.” --- Rep. George Faught, R-Muskogee
What challenges do you still face as a senior legislator with one year left to serve?
“(This year) with the tied Senate, I served as (Republican) floor leader. The challenge was trying to build relationships with not only those on our side of the aisle but those on the other side or else legislation wasn’t going to move forward.” --- Sen. Owen Laughlin, R-Woodward
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
As a senior legislator with only one year left to serve, what have you noticed over the years?
“As much as things change, a lot stay the same. A lot of those overwriting issues still remain.” --- Sen. Mike Morgan, D-Stillwater
Jaclyn Houghton is CNHI News Service Oklahoma reporter
A Look Back for Lawmakers... (Part 1)
A Look Back for Lawmakers...
Friday, December 28, 2007; Posted 6:11 p.m. (CDT)
Laws are supposed to guide and protect us, but then we come across laws making the watermelon the official vegetable and wonder how next year's session can possibly beat this year's.
It's been a good year for some, like the anti-immigration bill author Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore.
"[House Bill] 1804 has been a tremendous success," says Terrill.
It's been a less than ideal year for others like Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City.
"The personal things I filed never made it to the House floor," says Lindley.
Some even managed to have a little fun, like Rep. Joe Dorman, D-Rush Springs, who authored the bill making watermelon the official state vegetable.
"I swear it is a vegetable," says Dorman.
Like every year, legislators were busy writing, re-writing and arguing. One of the biggest noisemakers of the year for Oklahoma has to be the anti-immigration bill. That bill made it a crime to harbor or employ illegal immigrants and gave law enforcement the ability to detain them until they are deported.
"It's not going to succeed where Mr. Terrill and his people say it will," says Lindley.
"Two to one margin Oklahomans not only support House Bill 1804, but they also by a two to one margin support strengthening the bill, " says Terrill.
Other big laws that affected the state in a less controversial way were the sex-offender laws. That includes Jessica's law, which increased the penalty for sex offenses against children under the age of 12 to at least 25 years in prison. Another one put up a three-tier system to rate sex offenders.
These are only a few of the hundreds of laws put into place this year, and legislators have a lot more planned.
"Our roads still aren't in very good shape. If there's any doubt about that, just drive across the border from Oklahoma to Texas, and it'll be glaringly apparent," says Terrill.
They hope the second year into the centennial is as great as the first.
"The one thing I'm worried about it being an election year is we always see a lot of politics played where people try to one up each other," says Dorman.
"Been a lot of good things in 2007, and hopefully, a lot of good things in 2008," says Terrill.
Rep. Dorman says the watermelon bill helped bring a lot of tourism and promotion to the state's watermelon festival, so it's worth being known as the watermelon guy. He's now working on legislation for this session that will select the state's official rock-and-roll song.
Rep. Dorman isn't just working on that bill, though. He's working on legislation that will give better training to firefighters to keep them safe. He's also working on another bill to help grandparents who are taking care of their grandchildren.
Is the lottery failing to live up to hype? NO !!!!!!!!!! Part One
Sun December 30, 2007
Is the lottery failing to live up to hype
By Wendy K. Kleinman
Staff Writer
The penny most people use to reveal a scratch-off is about how much of a $1 lottery ticket purchase that ends up going to public school districts.
The Oklahoma City and Tulsa school districts each receive about 1 percent of the Lottery Commission's total annual revenue. Other districts receive even less.
The money districts get is earmarked for specific purposes, education officials said.
Yet there is a common perception — which can largely be traced back to advertising when voters approved a lottery — that school accounts should be brimming with lottery profits.
With a projected shortfall in lottery funds revealed last week for this school year and for the second year in a row, state schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett wants to change the way lottery money gets to schoolchildren, so it can help public education.
How it affects schools
Financial shortfalls
The Legislature appropriates lottery money to schools during its annual budget session, based on estimates of how much money the lottery will generate.
This year, schools will get $4.6 million less than the $36.9 million that was budgeted, according to financial figures available at Thursday's meeting of the state Board of Equalization. Last year, schools were allotted $21.8 million less than the $53 million appropriated.
That cost contributed to a loss of more than a dozen teaching positions in Enid last year, school district spokeswoman Amber Fitzgerald said.
Lottery funds last year were given to districts to help pay for the $3,000 teacher pay raise mandated by the Legislature.
But in Enid, the lottery money paid for about 30 percent of that pay raise. As a result of the shortfall, the local board of education had to cut $1.6 million from teacher's salaries and elsewhere to come up with enough funds, Fitzgerald said. That cost the district about 20 teachers.
The shortfall was not the sole reason for the cuts, but it was a factor, she said.
Garrett will ask the state Board of Education at its January meeting to OK a request for supplemental funding from the Legislature to cover the shortfall, she said Thursday.
Money tied up
A $10 million bond issue to build an elementary school and make other infrastructure improvements in Enid failed in mid-December. District officials received questions about why lottery money wasn't being used for those improvements, Fitzgerald said, even though that would be illegal.
"The perception probably comes from the campaign to pass the lottery when we had the state question,” said Shawn Hime, an assistant superintendent at the state Education Department.
"Most of (the advertising includes) young children, so it makes you think the money is going to young children, while only 45 percent of it is,” Hime said.
That's 45 percent out of the 30 to 35 percent of the lottery's annual revenue that goes into the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund. The rest of the lottery's revenue goes to prizes, lottery operations and other expenses.
From the trust fund, 45 percent goes to prekindergarten through 12th-grade education; 5 percent to a school consolidation fund; and 5 percent to a teacher retirement fund. The Legislature divides the rest among higher education, technical centers and schools for the blind and deaf.
The portion that goes to secondary education must be divided among more than 500 districts in the state.
How it could be changed
What lottery officials want
Beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, lottery officials must turn over at least 35 percent of profits to the education trust fund. The current minimum is 30 percent.
But the greater the percentage of money that must go to education, the less there is to put into prizes, and Oklahoma already has the lowest payout of any state, said Rollo Redburn, the commission's director of administration.
What the Lottery Commission wants to do is make prizes worth more, which it expects to result in more sales. Therefore, even though a smaller percentage of profits would go to schools, there would be more actual cash to give out, Redburn said.
Republican Rep. Chris Benge said he thinks the lottery's novelty has worn off. He said people here gamble at casinos.
"I don't see any real growth opportunities out there for the lottery,” said Benge, chairman of the House Appropriations and Budget Committee.
What education officials want
Garrett wants lottery funds to be distributed outside legislative appropriations.
That way, schools would not have to absorb the cost when there's a shortfall — instead, schools would receive "bonus” money. School boards also would be able to choose how to use the funds, Garrett said.
Is the lottery failing to live up to hype
By Wendy K. Kleinman
Staff Writer
The penny most people use to reveal a scratch-off is about how much of a $1 lottery ticket purchase that ends up going to public school districts.
The Oklahoma City and Tulsa school districts each receive about 1 percent of the Lottery Commission's total annual revenue. Other districts receive even less.
The money districts get is earmarked for specific purposes, education officials said.
Yet there is a common perception — which can largely be traced back to advertising when voters approved a lottery — that school accounts should be brimming with lottery profits.
With a projected shortfall in lottery funds revealed last week for this school year and for the second year in a row, state schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett wants to change the way lottery money gets to schoolchildren, so it can help public education.
How it affects schools
Financial shortfalls
The Legislature appropriates lottery money to schools during its annual budget session, based on estimates of how much money the lottery will generate.
This year, schools will get $4.6 million less than the $36.9 million that was budgeted, according to financial figures available at Thursday's meeting of the state Board of Equalization. Last year, schools were allotted $21.8 million less than the $53 million appropriated.
That cost contributed to a loss of more than a dozen teaching positions in Enid last year, school district spokeswoman Amber Fitzgerald said.
Lottery funds last year were given to districts to help pay for the $3,000 teacher pay raise mandated by the Legislature.
But in Enid, the lottery money paid for about 30 percent of that pay raise. As a result of the shortfall, the local board of education had to cut $1.6 million from teacher's salaries and elsewhere to come up with enough funds, Fitzgerald said. That cost the district about 20 teachers.
The shortfall was not the sole reason for the cuts, but it was a factor, she said.
Garrett will ask the state Board of Education at its January meeting to OK a request for supplemental funding from the Legislature to cover the shortfall, she said Thursday.
Money tied up
A $10 million bond issue to build an elementary school and make other infrastructure improvements in Enid failed in mid-December. District officials received questions about why lottery money wasn't being used for those improvements, Fitzgerald said, even though that would be illegal.
"The perception probably comes from the campaign to pass the lottery when we had the state question,” said Shawn Hime, an assistant superintendent at the state Education Department.
"Most of (the advertising includes) young children, so it makes you think the money is going to young children, while only 45 percent of it is,” Hime said.
That's 45 percent out of the 30 to 35 percent of the lottery's annual revenue that goes into the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund. The rest of the lottery's revenue goes to prizes, lottery operations and other expenses.
From the trust fund, 45 percent goes to prekindergarten through 12th-grade education; 5 percent to a school consolidation fund; and 5 percent to a teacher retirement fund. The Legislature divides the rest among higher education, technical centers and schools for the blind and deaf.
The portion that goes to secondary education must be divided among more than 500 districts in the state.
How it could be changed
What lottery officials want
Beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, lottery officials must turn over at least 35 percent of profits to the education trust fund. The current minimum is 30 percent.
But the greater the percentage of money that must go to education, the less there is to put into prizes, and Oklahoma already has the lowest payout of any state, said Rollo Redburn, the commission's director of administration.
What the Lottery Commission wants to do is make prizes worth more, which it expects to result in more sales. Therefore, even though a smaller percentage of profits would go to schools, there would be more actual cash to give out, Redburn said.
Republican Rep. Chris Benge said he thinks the lottery's novelty has worn off. He said people here gamble at casinos.
"I don't see any real growth opportunities out there for the lottery,” said Benge, chairman of the House Appropriations and Budget Committee.
What education officials want
Garrett wants lottery funds to be distributed outside legislative appropriations.
That way, schools would not have to absorb the cost when there's a shortfall — instead, schools would receive "bonus” money. School boards also would be able to choose how to use the funds, Garrett said.
FM 3-0 FOR DUMMIES
Over at CASTLE ARGGHHH!, Donovan has put together FM 3-0: DOCTRINE FOR DUMMIES
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………2
Text……………………………………………………………………..3
Glossary………………………………………………………………...5
Introduction
You are students. This means you are supposed to learn things. Read this and learn it.
There will be a test. There are only two grades…”win”, or “lose”.
Come back with your shield, or on it.
I.M. Mean
General
Soldier in Chief
FM 3-0 Operations for SAMS Students
1. The world is full of bad people. Mind you, not everyone is bad, but there are enough of them out there that we have to arm ourselves. Over the years, we’ve done a pretty good job of that. When the bad people scare us or hurt us, we have to whack them. This is hard, because you want to try and whack the bad people where they live and not where we live. Naturally, the bad people don’t want to get whacked, and they feel pretty smug because we aren’t mean enough to whack all of them at once. So we have to go over to where they live and whack them carefully. That’s why we have an Army and not just a Navy and an Air Force with trillions of dollars worth of super weapons. We don’t get such expensive weapons, because we break them a lot more rapidly. Even worse, the bad people can get close enough that they can whack Soldiers even though they get whacked a lot more.
2. Whacking bad people is dangerous. It’s also hard. It’s easier and safer to whack the bad people if you do it from the air or the ocean. That’s because the bad people can’t afford the super weapons that do stuff from there. That’s why we have to be nice to the Navy and Air Force; so they will whack bad people with great enthusiasm. Unfortunately, sometimes the Navy and Air Force get too enthusiastic at whacking people and they hurt Army Soldiers and other not so bad people that ended up in the wrong place. That’s why we have to spend a lot of effort telling them where we are and what we need them to do. We also try to stay out of their way when they are too busy whacking cities and countries and stuff. We also have to do a lot of explaining to civilian bureaucrats about what they need to do to clean up after the bad people get whacked. This is called “unified action” but it’s really like going over to the neighbors to apologize for breaking their window.
3. What makes this really hard is sorting out the not so bad people from the bad people. We try to whack the bad guys and miss the good guys. Of course, the not so bad people are all upset that we are over there whacking people. They want us to go back to where we live and leave them alone, unless the bad people are whacking them as well. They tend to go postal unless we help them keep their families alive and well. The best way to do that is to let their politicians and police do it while they stay out of our way. Unfortunately, their politicians and police screw this up a lot so we have to take time out from whacking the bad guys (or tricking the Air Force and Navy into doing that) and help out the not so bad people around us. Even though they won’t like us, sometimes they help us to find the bad people. This also helps us calm down the Air Force guys who would whack everybody at once. This is called “full spectrum operations.”
4. Even though we don’t get the super weapons that the Air Force and Navy get, we still have a lot of stuff and Soldiers. This is called “combat power.” None of this stuff is worth a nickel if somebody isn’t in charge. Hopefully they know what they are doing. When they do, it’s called leadership and it’s really important because most Soldiers just want somebody intelligent to take charge and get them back home in one piece. Inside the Army, we squabble about which part of the Army gets the most stuff. After a while, some really important general comes down and tells us to knock it off and “cooperate”. If we don’t, the bad people will whack us and even the Air Force won’t be able to bail us out. This is called “combined arms.”
5. The Army has a lot of processes that it is still trying to figure out. Don’t worry about these things. Just be happy if somebody actually gets you an order that you can understand in time for you to do something about it. If not, at least you can blame the higher headquarters. Most of the time, Soldiers are happy if they get fed, occasionally get some sleep and a shower and things aren’t too SNAFU. Soldiers also tend to be lazy unless they are motivated. This is “battle command.”
6. Really important generals are Soldiers too. They just get less sleep than the ordinary Soldiers. They have to try and figure out how to straighten out the big mess that all the politicians made. At the same time they have to decide how to whack the bad people and keep the not so bad people from going postal. If they do a good job, they get sent to the Pentagon. You don’t want to be one of them. This is called “operational art.”
7. Dealing with information is hard. The bad people don’t play by the rules and they lie… a lot. One screw-up on our part and all the not so bad people get all upset because the bad people make a big deal about it. We need to spend a lot of time telling the not so bad people why we are different than the really bad people. Usually they don’t get it. Meanwhile the media people are busy trying to uncover the giant government conspiracy that we are supposed to be running. Also every hacker and pedophile out there is trying to screw up our computers and radios. This makes it really hard. Meanwhile the Air Force and Navy are wondering what’s wrong, since it’s not so hard for them. Once in a while, somebody on our side figures out what we should be doing. This is called “knowledge Management.”
The End
Glossary
Bad People: People that need whacking.
Battle Command: Motivating Soldiers with a cigar in your mouth.
Combined Arms: Using all of your combat power at once and surviving it.
Full Spectrum Operations: Careful whacking combined with lots of explaining.
Operational Art: Getting the Air Force or Navy to deal with the bad people before Soldiers have to.
Not so bad people: Anybody in the area of operations that is not a bad person or a Soldier.
SNAFU: A Twentieth Century term for land operations.
Soldier: Individual speaking in expletives and wearing cool-looking digital camouflage that doesn’t blend in with anything.
Unified Action: The opposite of SNAFU
Whacking: The redistribution or impairment of biological functions intended to eliminate intercellular cooperation within a sentient organism.
Back Cover
This means it doesn’t say anything.
To get this in PDF click here
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………2
Text……………………………………………………………………..3
Glossary………………………………………………………………...5
Introduction
You are students. This means you are supposed to learn things. Read this and learn it.
There will be a test. There are only two grades…”win”, or “lose”.
Come back with your shield, or on it.
I.M. Mean
General
Soldier in Chief
FM 3-0 Operations for SAMS Students
1. The world is full of bad people. Mind you, not everyone is bad, but there are enough of them out there that we have to arm ourselves. Over the years, we’ve done a pretty good job of that. When the bad people scare us or hurt us, we have to whack them. This is hard, because you want to try and whack the bad people where they live and not where we live. Naturally, the bad people don’t want to get whacked, and they feel pretty smug because we aren’t mean enough to whack all of them at once. So we have to go over to where they live and whack them carefully. That’s why we have an Army and not just a Navy and an Air Force with trillions of dollars worth of super weapons. We don’t get such expensive weapons, because we break them a lot more rapidly. Even worse, the bad people can get close enough that they can whack Soldiers even though they get whacked a lot more.
2. Whacking bad people is dangerous. It’s also hard. It’s easier and safer to whack the bad people if you do it from the air or the ocean. That’s because the bad people can’t afford the super weapons that do stuff from there. That’s why we have to be nice to the Navy and Air Force; so they will whack bad people with great enthusiasm. Unfortunately, sometimes the Navy and Air Force get too enthusiastic at whacking people and they hurt Army Soldiers and other not so bad people that ended up in the wrong place. That’s why we have to spend a lot of effort telling them where we are and what we need them to do. We also try to stay out of their way when they are too busy whacking cities and countries and stuff. We also have to do a lot of explaining to civilian bureaucrats about what they need to do to clean up after the bad people get whacked. This is called “unified action” but it’s really like going over to the neighbors to apologize for breaking their window.
3. What makes this really hard is sorting out the not so bad people from the bad people. We try to whack the bad guys and miss the good guys. Of course, the not so bad people are all upset that we are over there whacking people. They want us to go back to where we live and leave them alone, unless the bad people are whacking them as well. They tend to go postal unless we help them keep their families alive and well. The best way to do that is to let their politicians and police do it while they stay out of our way. Unfortunately, their politicians and police screw this up a lot so we have to take time out from whacking the bad guys (or tricking the Air Force and Navy into doing that) and help out the not so bad people around us. Even though they won’t like us, sometimes they help us to find the bad people. This also helps us calm down the Air Force guys who would whack everybody at once. This is called “full spectrum operations.”
4. Even though we don’t get the super weapons that the Air Force and Navy get, we still have a lot of stuff and Soldiers. This is called “combat power.” None of this stuff is worth a nickel if somebody isn’t in charge. Hopefully they know what they are doing. When they do, it’s called leadership and it’s really important because most Soldiers just want somebody intelligent to take charge and get them back home in one piece. Inside the Army, we squabble about which part of the Army gets the most stuff. After a while, some really important general comes down and tells us to knock it off and “cooperate”. If we don’t, the bad people will whack us and even the Air Force won’t be able to bail us out. This is called “combined arms.”
5. The Army has a lot of processes that it is still trying to figure out. Don’t worry about these things. Just be happy if somebody actually gets you an order that you can understand in time for you to do something about it. If not, at least you can blame the higher headquarters. Most of the time, Soldiers are happy if they get fed, occasionally get some sleep and a shower and things aren’t too SNAFU. Soldiers also tend to be lazy unless they are motivated. This is “battle command.”
6. Really important generals are Soldiers too. They just get less sleep than the ordinary Soldiers. They have to try and figure out how to straighten out the big mess that all the politicians made. At the same time they have to decide how to whack the bad people and keep the not so bad people from going postal. If they do a good job, they get sent to the Pentagon. You don’t want to be one of them. This is called “operational art.”
7. Dealing with information is hard. The bad people don’t play by the rules and they lie… a lot. One screw-up on our part and all the not so bad people get all upset because the bad people make a big deal about it. We need to spend a lot of time telling the not so bad people why we are different than the really bad people. Usually they don’t get it. Meanwhile the media people are busy trying to uncover the giant government conspiracy that we are supposed to be running. Also every hacker and pedophile out there is trying to screw up our computers and radios. This makes it really hard. Meanwhile the Air Force and Navy are wondering what’s wrong, since it’s not so hard for them. Once in a while, somebody on our side figures out what we should be doing. This is called “knowledge Management.”
The End
Glossary
Bad People: People that need whacking.
Battle Command: Motivating Soldiers with a cigar in your mouth.
Combined Arms: Using all of your combat power at once and surviving it.
Full Spectrum Operations: Careful whacking combined with lots of explaining.
Operational Art: Getting the Air Force or Navy to deal with the bad people before Soldiers have to.
Not so bad people: Anybody in the area of operations that is not a bad person or a Soldier.
SNAFU: A Twentieth Century term for land operations.
Soldier: Individual speaking in expletives and wearing cool-looking digital camouflage that doesn’t blend in with anything.
Unified Action: The opposite of SNAFU
Whacking: The redistribution or impairment of biological functions intended to eliminate intercellular cooperation within a sentient organism.
Back Cover
This means it doesn’t say anything.
To get this in PDF click here
Too FUNNY - WEST POINT Oompa Loompa
One of my X-Officer, Who is a VMI grad, sent this to me...
West Point Cadets and this is what they do to make the future leaders of the U.S. Amry ?
WELL, THAT'S ONE WAY
!!LOL!!!
West Point Cadets and this is what they do to make the future leaders of the U.S. Amry ?
WELL, THAT'S ONE WAY
!!LOL!!!
Keating Leads 'Catholics For McCain'
Former Governor Frank Keating is the co-chairman of "Catholics for McCain," formed to support Arizona Senator John McCain's Republican presidential bid.Said Keating: "John McCain can uniquely appeal to Catholics with his strong, 24-year pro-life record, his stand for traditional values and school choice, his proven leadership in defending America, and his demonstrated ability to appeal to independent-minded voters. These are exactly the type of qualities that Catholic voters will be looking for in 2008."
Hat Tip to Mike McCarville @ the McCarville Report
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Mock to be next House Communications Director
Jennifer Mock, Daily Oklahoman reporter, will become the next Oklahoma State House Communications Director.
Jennifer Mock worked at Congressional Quarterly during the 2002 elections.
Following her graduation for UT-Austin in May 2003 with a degree in journalism, Jennifer went to work for The Oklahoman in Oklahoma City.
She was only there six months before CQ brought her back to D.C. to cover the 2004 elections. She covered the House, Senate, gubernatorial and presidential elections in 13 states, including Texas. Following the elections, she returned to The Oklahoman Capitol bureau, where she currently covers the state House of Representatives. She is also the head of the Oklahoma City chapter of the Texas Exes (University of Texas Alumni Association) and a member of the Archer Fellow Alumni Association.
Thank You Senator Randy Brogdon for the Oklahoma Taxpayer Transparency Act !
Oklahoma Opens Its Books -
Spending Transparency Website Goes Live
Spending Transparency Website Goes Live
Great news for Oklahoma taxpayers!
The Oklahoma Office of State Finance today launched OpenBooks - the website created thanks to the passage of State Senator Randy Brogdon's Taxpayer Transparency Act earlier this year.
The website, which can be accessed at www.openbooks.ok.gov provides Oklahoma taxpayers with comprehensive information on how their tax dollars are spent.
“We are charged with being good stewards of the state’s resources,” said Sen. Brogdon, R-Owasso. “Making the appropriations process completely transparent and easily accessible to our citizens is simply the right thing to do, because in reality, every dollar the Legislature appropriates belongs to the citizens.”
Sen. Brogdon said the program was modeled on a new federal law by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn which will allow citizens to track the use of federal dollars.
Friday, December 28, 2007
The Ron Paul Girl Video - LOL
The Original Ron Paul Girl Video
"Stripping for Ron Paul" as seen on Fox News and CNN
Ron Paul Girl - Worker Bee?
The 2nd "Ron Paul Girl" video. Will Liv shed her stinger for Ron Paul?
Ron Paul Girl - Register Now
A lot of people think that Republicans are evil. And a lot of people think that politics is boring. How do you overcome both of these biases and get 30,000 people to watch your video about why they should register Republican for the upcoming primaries? Lots of splashy visuals, sound effects, pop culture references, and ripping on as many people as possible in as short a period as possible. Arguably the funniest Ron Paul Girl video.
Ron Paul Girl - Great Moments in US History
The fourth in the Ron Paul Girl series. This video was seen by over 50,000 people in the six days preceding Ron Paul’s record-setting November 5th fundraising day and is likely to have contributed meaningfully to the day’s success, something of which we are immensely proud. It also happens to have come out the day after the Red Sox won the World Series, which turned what was initially just a dumb Boston joke and a random jab at Hillary Clinton into something much more timely and apropos.
Liv Films
Videos by Jed & Mona Gillen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)