To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at
ModernPatriot@hotmail.com
Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to
Cadman12@swbell.net
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M
odern
P
atriot
C
hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 3, Issue 4
April 29, 2004
by Craig Dawkins
The U.S. Senate Debate
Copyright@2004, All Rights Reserved.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
POLLS! POLLS! POLLS! POLLS!
Which Republican candidate for U.S. Senate would have the best chance to defeat Brad Carson in November?
Bob Anthony - Tom Coburn - Kirk Humphries - Linda Murphy
Go to
www.ModernPatriot.net
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
I've Been Busy
I have been occasionally getting emails asking, "Where have you been? I'm not getting as many emails from you as in the past." Well the answer is that I've been extremely busy and not able to devote the amount time to political writing as in the past. By design, my website and email endeavors do not bring in cash. This is a hobby of mine, (some might say a sick one) and as a hobby must take its appropriate portion of my time. However, I am back today to deliver my passionate opinions regarding the Republican U.S. Senate primary.
Here goes…
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
The U.S. Senate Debate
I anxiously awaited the Daily Oklahoman's description of the U.S. senate debate that occurred last Friday night held at Christian Heritage Academy in Del City, Oklahoma. I won't repeat the positional dribble that the Oklahoman chose to publish. What you will read here is the story the Oklahoman chose not to tell.
The candidates positions based on the questioning from the panel was so similar it would take a hair splitter working overtime to find real meaningful differences on the issues addressed by the candidates. If you judged the candidates on presentation and performance they all represented themselves quite well. Linda Murphy was the surprise of the evening. She was much more impressive than I expected her to be. Bob Anthony seems to epitomize political ethics when one measures his past political record. Kirk Humphries defended his mayoral record but came off as sort of aloof and condescending at times. He actually refused to answer a direct question from the audience. (More on this later.) Tom Coburn presented himself as a self-less statesman. Only time will tell whether this is an accurate perception or not. But Coburn demonstrated why he may have the best chance to defeat Democrat Brad Carson in November.
The excitement started after the candidates were finished answering questions from the panel. Up to this point, the candidates chose to keep their answers focused on the questions rather than their differences with other candidates. One exception to this was Linda Murphy who, on several occasions, mentioned that the U.S. Senate needs a "conservative woman." This struck me as a somewhat cheap ploy to get the females to vote for her simply because she is a female. I am not a big fan of affirmative action primaries. Male or female shouldn't be a pertinent issue.
A question from the audience regarding Indian treaties and Indian PAC money started a meylay directed mostly at Kirk Humphries. Bob Anthony discussed the factual aspects of Kirk Humphries participation in a Las Vegas fund raiser where he received Indian PAC money.
Humphries stated, "I'm happy to have support from Indians." Then Humphries attacked Bob Anthony for getting money from oil interests and taking a paycheck from the State while running for U.S. Senate. Now let's just consider this argument for one second. Does Humphries have facts to back up his claim that Anthony is being abusive somehow or garnering some sort of corruption by accepting money from the oil industry? Is the oil industry on par with the Indian gaming industry?
And why should Anthony resign his position on the commission to run for U.S. Senate? Humphries decided to distance himself from his Oklahoma City mayoral position so that he could spend all-of-his time running for U.S. Senate. Is it Humphries position that the Oklahoma Republican Party would be better off not having Bob Anthony on the Corporation Commission?
Linda Murphy agreed that gambling was an important issue and that she was very concerned about Governor Brad Henry's gaming compact with Oklahoma tribes. She also raised the connection of Humphries and Coburn to the Las Vegas fundraiser.
Tom Coburn stated that he had not taken any contributions from Indian gaming PAC's. He stated that casino gaming gave "opportunity to undermine the morality of the state."
The next question from the audience was from a woman who quoted something her son had attributed to Kirk Humphries. The quote attributed to Humphries was, "When small businesses can generate the kind of tax revenue a Bass Pro can, then I'll cut them the same kind of deal I gave to Bass Pro." Her question was if that quote was accurate. Rather than address whether he spoke those words, Humphries refused to answer her question. He stated that he would answer what he felt her "real question" was. Then he went on to defend his Bass Pro deal explaining all of the benefits realized by downtown Oklahoma City. Very interesting. This kind of non-responsive dodging will not serve him well. If he said those words, he needs to explain it. If he didn't say those words, he needs to deny it. Not answering raises lots of concerns.
Then Linda Murphy raised the question of eminent domain in the taking of land used by Bass Pro. Humphries stated that this was done before he was mayor. But the question is why eminent domain was used for the benefit of a private business concern rather than a public business interest. Taking land for the purposes of building an interstate highway is far different from taking land away to enable a private business concern to use the land. It goes straight to property rights and the constitution. Humphries had the opportunity to correct the situation if he felt the use of eminent domain was being abused. He chose not to address it. Which is yet another issue.
When it was Tom Coburn's turn to speak, he proposed that the negative rancor wasn't going to help Republicans' defeat Carson in November. He offered a proposal that each candidate agree not to negative campaign or attack other Republicans. Humphries eagerly agreed.
Linda Murphy stated that she would not agree with Coburn in this regard because it was important for voters to understand the differences between the candidates and what they stand for. I agree.
Too often in the Republican Party there's no vetting of important issues due to the supposed purposes of Reagan's 11th commandment. The question is should truthful information about someone be elevated in a campaign that is not favorable to that candidate? ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT QUESTION. Truth telling is required if we are to get the best candidates in public office. Coburn just doesn't like the negative feelings caused by these exchanges. He has demonstrated a weakness in this area and one wonders how he will truly be an independent voice of reason for the Republican Party when he is not willing to endure the unpleasantries of truth telling about issues and opponents.
But it all boils down to the question Tom Coburn asked in his closing statement; "Who do you think Brad Carson is afraid to run against?" The answer to this question is obvious.
Linda Murphy has a "grass roots" campaign which always equates to not having enough money to challenge opponents using television, radio, and newspaper.
Bob Anthony has shown himself to be a courageous warrior who has made lots of enemies in the state including the Daily Oklahoman. Anthony has a strong conservative record in which to run on. He just focuses too much on the past election statistics in trying to convince people why he can win. If he has to remind people of the statistics, maybe the chances aren't quite as good as he proclaims. But I personally like Bob Anthony.
Kirk Humphries has shown himself a friend of corporate welfare who shows deference to big business at the expense of small business. He has shown himself to support tax increases and Indian gaming. He probably shouldn't do anymore debates because his demeanor is condescending and defensive. His campaign slogan during the debate was, "I'm a uniter not divider." He repeated that phrase at least 5 times during the debate. It strikes me that this phrase is neither accurate nor original. Repeating President Bush's campaign phrase is a political form of plagiarism and misleading. There's not a lot of uniting being done by Humphries. And some might even argue that there's quite a bit of dividing going on.
Tom Coburn has a conservative record. He has the reputation among many of being a straight shooter. I'm not sure that this label is entirely accurate as he has been used by other politicians to quell Republican primary truth telling or what he might call 'negative campaigning.' But there is one undeniable fact about the candidacy of Tom Coburn. He is the one person that Carson doesn't want to face. Carson might not win his own congressional district if Coburn were to be the Republican nominee.
From my perspective, Tom Coburn is the only candidate that can face and defeat Brad Carson in November. Humphries has lots of money, endorsements and a questionable record to run on. Anthony is noble and has a better chance to defeat Carson than Humphries. Linda Murphy is an impressive conservative woman who will likely be overwhelmed by her lack of money.
Let the hate mail begin.