Why did OK County and Tulsa County vote McCain?

[okcpulse]

Um Midtowner,

Do you sincerely believe what you said, "what does it matter what's going on in D.C. anyhow?"

You seem to believe that Coburn was supposed to have been something different than he has shown himself to be. Not sure how much you watch Coburn...while his appearances in Washington are somewhat rare, when he does appear, it is just to stall legislation...has proposes little or no alternate or opinion (other than "it's wrong"), no intelligent debate, just zero productivity. Occasionally he will support someone else's bill, but I don't believe I have ever seen him introduce anything useful on his own. Especially not Inhofe. You are right about Coburn and the noise...that's about all he is good for.

You were asking how we can have an affect up there (in DC)...well, did you actually expect Coburn to do any better than Inhofe???

Just out of curiosity, have you watched either of them in action? Not in the news reports, but in-action on like c-span? He and Inhofe are not too different.


And OKCPulse, you mention quitting both parties. So, what are you gonna do when the next party fails you? And the next? Or the 100th one? You don't think it more productive to fight for change within your party rather than keep creating new ones everytime something goes wrong? While route66gal is correct in the things that the Republican party has done recently, not all Republicans are this way or have been this way. I know republicans that are fighting (especially after this election) to get the party back on track.

The next party won't fail me because there won't BE a next party for me. Both parties have evolved into nothing more than high-school clicks. I fight for change that works and makes sense. I don't fight for partisan change. I feel party labels and color labels are distracting badly misinformed Americans from the heart of our problems.

The two-party system was created to maintain balance in our government. But people today do not possess the maturity and wit to respect that balance. They only care about being Republican or Democrat as well as preach false facts fed to them by very bad sources.

This was the ugliest election in U.S. history. Not because of whom we were voting for, but because of the way most voters treated each other. We had sore winners and sore losers. Does someone need to take the lollipop from these people and explain the candy will be returned when they stop acting like whiny children? Does anyone anymore get the concept of courtesy? A few do, but most don't.

[sgray]

OKCPulse-

on your 1st post, on what did the state Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) turn loose on spending??? Cause I sure haven't seen it...unless it was some overpayment to an "in bed with" contractor or something that was kept hush..hush. I never saw anything that you speak of...perhaps you could provide some examples. I remember the I-40 bridge collapse in east OK way back during that time you mention and I don't recall anything being spent by either party on that thing prior to it collapsing and making national news.

on your last post, what do you expect to happen when you move to "party x" that represents this "change that works and makes sense" and something eventually happens that makes it not necessarily represent that "change" any more. Unless you are running yourself, you are gonna have to join and vote for "a" parties' candidate.

I really have to call you out on your comment about this being the "ugliest election in U.S. history." Way off! You really think this was worse than the 2000 elections...not only with the Florida fiasco, but where all the protests and then the riots at the motorcade occurred??? Then we had all the Ohio crap in 2004... Seriously, on what do you base that statement? While we had some close races in some areas, this year went way way way way smooth! We knew who our next president was going to be on the night of the election and most of the other stuff no later than late night/early next morning. And as it turns out, the prez election ended up with close to 8.5m extra votes when it was all said and done. Hardly close as any in recent years.

"they only care about being republican or democrat" you say? Hmm...if Obama puts some republicans in his cabinet, which is looking to be the case, what then say you? And in defense of some republicans, Lindsey Graham and John McCain were of the first senators up there meeting with Obama right after he won, looking to begin on some common ground. Maybe it was all for show...but they did do it and that's something you did not see with this administration now. You name me one time when you've seen an Oklahoma party come across the aisle after the election and look to work together.

...and what you said about the way voters treated each other...man, I was blown away by how nice folks were. On the 1st early vote day, I was in that mile-long line (for almost 3 hrs) early in the morning to vote at the OK county election board and that was one of the few things that impressed me...and to have the news out there showing how folks were handling themselves. While folks may have had opinions, they were really cool with one another. People treated each other the way I would expect them to.

[CuatrodeMayo]

are you a moderator because you sure go around here calling people trolls and telling them they are OT and such. If you are not a mod, that is called BULLYING.

Sorry for hurting your precious feelings.

[Midtowner]

The Supreme Court has not struck down every tort reform measure. There's still a cap on non-economic damages for some types of medical malpractice claims. I could list some more but I'll leave it up to do the homework.

See... I actually agree with the caps as they're currently written. Tying some sort of civil mens rea requirement to award makes sense. I mean.. the lowest is what... $250K? I know medmal trials cost a crapton to put on, but I would think 1/3 of $250K plus 1/3 of what is probably a good deal of economic damages isn't too bad.

Republicans in this state care about god, guns & gays and the republican party makes no bones about it.

Again, I'm not too worried. In fact, the civil libertarian in me wants the Republican party to go hog wild passing as much reactionary nonsense as they possibly can. Let's get the Supreme Court of Oklahoma or the SCOTUS to overturn some crazy laws, setting valuable precedent. I'm fine with this.

If those are the things you really care about, then that's your party. While those wedge issues might help them get elected, it does little to inspire ideas on how to improve our state's economy, education and health care system. This is why so many young people flee this state the first chance they get...

Ah.. you get it. Those are wedge issues. For the most part, I think Republicans are not like Sally Kern. They see wedge issues for what they are -- issues which are good for one thing only -- marshalling useful idiots to the polls.

I'm not saying that Glen Coffee or Chris Benge are inherently better or smarter (in fact, Coffee is an embarrassment considering his moronic defense of his own tort reform bill in '07). It's just that someone else now gets a shot.

And look... if you really want to argue that we haven't been under single party rule because we've had what... 12 or 16 years of Republican governors, and about what.. 4 years of the house being Republican, that's great. But you can hardly blame the guys currently in charge for the dismal failure that has been state government since around WWII.

[route66gal]

On an added note, don'tt put ALL the blame on Republicans for being fiscally irresponsible. Look at Oklahoma democrats at the state capitol and what they did to the state in the 1980s and 1990s. They were tax and spend mongers.

Oh but we have our pretty disney ditch down in Bricktown
and Bass Pro and and and and..all republican agendas.

[oknacreous]

Republicans in this state care about god, guns & gays and the republican party makes no bones about it. If those are the things you really care about, then that's your party. While those wedge issues might help them get elected, it does little to inspire ideas on how to improve our state's economy, education and health care system. This is why so many young people flee this state the first chance they get...

Bravo, well said. But you forgot about teaching creationism and other anti-science and anti-intellectual efforts. I'm certain the state GOP acts deliberately to keep the people as stupid as possible to maintain their power through fear-mongering on meaningless wedge issues. I also have to keep reminding people, despite midtowner's claims, Sally Kern IS the face of the state GOP. After all they gave Sally Kern a standing ovation at a recent meeting, and there is a strong element in that party that wants to nominate her for Governor in 2010.

[bretthexum]

Let's be honest here. An Oklahoma Democrat isn't really a die hard liberal.

[soonerguru]

Oklahoma is probably the only state in the union in which a majority of its citizens would argue that the Republican party has done a good job running the country (into the ground). OK, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho are probably in that mix. Sheer hilarity.

OKCPulse cracks me up. The old, "It doesn't matter who wins, they're the same" argument. Right. We're buying that.

[fire121]

The president doesn't spend money, congress does. You could build the same graph for who controlled congress at the time to sell the opposite viewpoint.

[sgray]

fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Keep in mind republicans were in control of congress this entire time.


Apparently you dont recall too much of bush's high-flyin plans he slid through the system and his famous "and congress is gonna have to find a way to pay for it" speeches.

[Midtowner]

fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Bush is not a conservative. He never was.

He's a whore to the special interests. He always has been. That ideally isn't what conservatism is all about.

Of course, the last real conservative to run for the Presidency was Goldwater.

[route66gal]

The president doesn't spend money, congress does. You could build the same graph for who controlled congress at the time to sell the opposite viewpoint.

United Stated National Debt

The president set the policies and economy. Above link explains more taking into account congress.

[hoya]

fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Keep in mind republicans were in control of congress this entire time.


Apparently you dont recall too much of bush's high-flyin plans he slid through the system and his famous "and congress is gonna have to find a way to pay for it" speeches.

In 95 through 06? An unsustainable economic boom based off of tech stocks, which then crashed just before Clinton left office, followed by 9/11, which led to increased deficit spending to fund two wars.

All this talk of "lockbox" in the 2000 election didn't matter, because the surplus disappeared as soon as people realized the internet wasn't a license to print free money.

Route66gal, you really need to find a better website to swipe your graphics from, because the one you posted (in addition to being fairly childish), uses quite a few terms incorrectly and isn't particularly accurate. While it claims to be a measure of the "national debt", it's really charting the federal deficit, which is something different. If you want to look intelligent and post a clever graphic, it helps to use one that doesn't get its terms wrong.

[route66gal]

fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Keep in mind republicans were in control of congress this entire time.


Apparently you dont recall too much of bush's high-flyin plans he slid through the system and his famous "and congress is gonna have to find a way to pay for it" speeches.

Exactly. if Gore had been president the debt would near be payed off because he would have kept things the way Clinton had them.

The president no matter what people try to claim is who sets these things in motion via economic policy. The republicans use trickle down which crashes the economy every time they have used it.

[route66gal]

In 95 through 06? An unsustainable economic boom based off of tech stocks, which then crashed just before Clinton left office, followed by 9/11, which led to increased deficit spending to fund two wars.

All this talk of "lockbox" in the 2000 election didn't matter, because the surplus disappeared as soon as people realized the internet wasn't a license to print free money.

Route66gal, you really need to find a better website to swipe your graphics from, because the one you posted (in addition to being fairly childish), uses quite a few terms incorrectly and isn't particularly accurate. While it claims to be a measure of the "national debt", it's really charting the federal deficit, which is something different. If you want to look intelligent and post a clever graphic, it helps to use one that doesn't get its terms wrong.

all data is from the government sites on that chart, try again. wrong.
Government - Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD) and Downloadable Files

here try this






Still think republicans are the ones fiscally responsible? LOL The above charts are even old, bush would be OFF the chart even before the bailout by now.

[sgray]

If you want to look intelligent and post a clever graphic, it helps to use one that doesn't get its terms wrong.

I say if you want to win a debate or have any of your argument carry weight, you'd better have more facts than just 'here say'. So where is your map? I say if you want to look intelligent you'd better post a correct version. eh? eh? ...and how many terms could it have wrong? All it says is 'increases in the national debt' with a president named above each year. Is there some disappearing ink I'm not seeing?

hoya, so obviously the dot com boom was created by private co's that were startups and were given tons of capital from private co's and they blew through it like candy...that has nothing to do with the president. What does have to to with the president is that post-9/11 when Bush decided to "fund two wars", he went on a spending spree, giving no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton who could (and DID) charge us insane prices for every line item, and the republican congress didn't even try to stop him. You're telling me that in over 5 years of a war there was no time to send any major contracts out to bid??? please...that could have done that from day one, but that wasn't the agenda.

[route66gal]

And before anyone trys to blame Carter. The Vietnam War debt was added to the national deb under him- was paid off which added to inflation in which the Fed hoped to stop by tightening the money flow, which hit harder than they thought it would. But Reagan saw this as a chance to blame carter and use trickle down to start his very own recession which added 200% to the national debt. More than ALL democrats combined ever did at the time. So with this truth in hand its very likely our current mess is our war debt. Because Inflation is caused by printing money / national debt. Thanks repubs!! Man that war and trickle down voodoo economics really does wonders!!

[sgray]

route66gal,

nice charts...without getting into a long debate, Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida, if the supreme court hadn't have steeped in and the state wouldn't have rushed to get a quick answer.

Thats neither here nor now now, though. Just thought I'd point it out.

[hoya]

Sgray, Route66gal, the chart wasn't labeled properly. End of story.

Sgray, even the recounts that were conducted by local Florida newspapers long after the Supreme Court ruled showed Bush winning.

And you're right that the dot com bust had nothing to do with the President. Neither did the dot com boom. But you wanted to know why we went from no deficit to a big one, and that's why.

Whether Bush's decision to wage two wars was good or bad doesn't matter when we're talking about why the deficit got bigger. We KNOW why it got bigger -- there's no question.

Now, I'm not a fiscal conservative, so I don't really care that it grew. Most of our economic policies and institutions are based upon the US running a near continuous deficit. It isn't like having a credit card that you need to pay off before you retire -- we're talking about a nation's fiscal policy, not household budgeting.

[route66gal]

route66gal,

nice charts...without getting into a long debate, Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida, if the supreme court hadn't have steeped in and the state wouldn't have rushed to get a quick answer.

Thats neither here nor now now, though. Just thought I'd point it out.

I agree and know

We as a people should not have allowed this especially since florida was under Jeb Bush. UGH! Cons!

[sgray]

No, no, its not the "end of story" until you prove your point...till then the facts as presented are assumed to be true. And I don't see anything mislabeled.

One major problem I have with your reply on the deficit (then debt) is that you blew past my argument on the fact that bush sent out no-bid contracts for the wars! That contributed heavily to the eventual debt! Not as much the wars as the NO-BID contracts. When we're paying 800% (not official) over what's something's worth, thats a big problem and it's one that bush purposely disregarded and that's why I attribute a lot of this problem directly to him. His bad decisions made a huge dent in leading us here.

[route66gal]

Sgray, Route66gal, the chart wasn't labeled properly. End of story.

Sgray, even the recounts that were conducted by local Florida newspapers long after the Supreme Court ruled showed Bush winning.

And you're right that the dot com bust had nothing to do with the President. Neither did the dot com boom. But you wanted to know why we went from no deficit to a big one, and that's why.

Whether Bush's decision to wage two wars was good or bad doesn't matter when we're talking about why the deficit got bigger. We KNOW why it got bigger -- there's no question.

Now, I'm not a fiscal conservative, so I don't really care that it grew. Most of our economic policies and institutions are based upon the US running a near continuous deficit. It isn't like having a credit card that you need to pay off before you retire -- we're talking about a nation's fiscal policy, not household budgeting.

You cant handle facts, but FYI you should be worried about the deficit because it creates INFLATION which causes the economy to go south.
Just say it, you cant handle Clinton succeeded. And Bush has failed. LOL Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs on average than Reagan and added less to the debt.

[hoya]

Sigh.

The graph should be labeled as increases in the federal deficit. While the numbers are related to the national debt, at no point are the numbers for the national debt shown. This is a graph of the deficit from year to year, as evidenced by the crudely drawn red and blue arrows pointing "up" and "down". If it was a chart of the debt, you'd have red and blue arrows pointing "up" and "up", because the debt itself has continuously increased since roughly 1776. It's a bad chart.

As far as who "really" won Florida, I'll direct you to information from that bastion of conservative journalism, the LA Times.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/27/news/mn-30743

[sgray]

Well, one thing is for sure. While other presidents may have been able to fail and not take the country with them, Obama doesn't have that option. He HAS to turn this thing around.

You know, one thing I was just thinking back to is that, you know how in 2000 and 2004, Karl Rove was supposedly this "mastermind architect" to win elections...and look at how much margin Obama won with. He got almost 8.5m more votes than McCain. And in Rove's last couple of elections, they did not get that kind of result...in fact it was pretty close. Interesting.

[hoya]

You cant handle facts, but FYI you should be worried about the deficit because it creates INFLATION which causes the economy to go south.
Just say it, you cant handle Clinton succeeded. And Bush has failed. LOL Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs on average than Reagan and added less to the debt.

Yeah, we really suffered from terrible inflation under Reagan.

The deficit is the basis for US Treasury Bonds. Without those, investors don't have a safe place to flee when the stock market gets rocky. Want to know where most of grandma's retirement is saved? US Treasury Bonds. Want to know where junior's college fund is invested? US Treasury Bonds. Want to know the safest, most stable, most trusted investment in the whole damn world? The one where investors went when oil prices began falling? The one where foreign investors went when asian stocks crashed in the 90s? You got it.

A deficit helps create liquidity in an economy. As long as your deficit doesn't get out of hand, it helps stimulate economic growth. There's a reason we've run a deficit continuously for 200+ years and yet have the largest and most powerful economy in the world.