Well, all of you probably remember the Carol Fisher scandal. This could've been prevented had the office been an appointed position. What would you think about allowing the governor to appoint this position instead of making it an elected office?

---------
"Bill would make post appointive



The state insurance commissioner would become an appointed position under legislation proposed by a Tulsa Republican and sponsored by a Durant Democrat.
It comes after the impeachment and resignation of former state Insurance Commissioner Carroll Fisher earlier this year.

Rep. John Trebilcock, R- Broken Arrow, announced plans for legislation similar to a bill he filed during the 2004 session. Such a change would require a vote of the people.

"This is not a partisan issue," Trebilcock said in a written release. "There is an inherent conflict of interest when the vast majority of the contributions to this office comes from the groups the officer regulates. Appointment of this position would eliminate the power of outside interests to influence regulation."

Rep. John Carey, D-Durant, said he would sponsor the bill "in the spirit of bipartisanship."

The special committee that investigated Fisher also recommended the change in its report to the full House. "

I think an appointment would be a whole lot better than electing someone. We have enough offices that are filled by the voters, so why not have some that are just appointed?

I concur. There are many offices, this one included that the voters have no real interest in researching. That's how a boob like Fischer got elected in the first place. We need to make several of our offices appointed, like Judges, the Court Clerk, the County Clerk, etc. Offices where probably 99% of the public couldn't even describe what they do, let alone make an intelligent choice on voting day.

Take my 80-year-old grandmother, for example. When it comes to judges, etc., she'll vote for the woman just because she's a woman if she's running against a man. I'll bet she's not the only one that uses that sort of logic in the polls.

I'm of two minds on this issue. I'd hate to give up that little segment of the voting franchise that's devoted to offices like Insurance Commissioner; on the other hand, actually learning anything useful about the candidates is a difficult proposition at best.

I do have one rule on judges on a retention ballot: if I've heard of them, I vote no. Rationale: judges seldom get any news coverage unless they do something staggeringly unpopular or incredibly dumb.

That's why the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has refused to stand up to the 'good 'ol boys' like Gaylord (when he was alive). Control of the press certainly was a real threat to their job security. I could give you some specific examples if need be, but it's something our Supremes are notorious for -- making new law whenever they think they might do something that'll get their names in the news.

But I'll bet you can name 3 or 4 U.S. Supreme Court Justices -- why is that?

Largely because I don't depend on local media to get my national news fix. (On the other hand, I'm not likely to get much detail about what happens in the Okay City from, say, some Knight-Ridder rag.)

And anyway, it's not a particularly defensible rule; it's just something to go by when I've forgotten to read the sample ballot, which happens a bit more often than I'd like to admit.

Personally, I vote against all of them every election.....leaving them in there too long, and they start to feel like they rule the world and don't have to obey the law.