One down and one to go. We're cleaning house at the County Commissioners office - starting with Stan Inman. The sooner we get rid of Brent Rinehart - the better. He is self-serving and pompous and has no place in office. Jim Roth is a man of exceptional integrity, honest, hard working, smart, and good for Oklahoma - everything Rinehart is not.

Rinehart does have an awesome mustache though. You must admit!

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

If we got rid of every pompous, self-serving officeholder in this state, we'd have vacancies from Shattuck to Shangri-La.

That said, I like Jim Roth, and I'd like to see him around for another term.

I'm anxiously awaiting to hear what the downside to this would be.

LOL! Actually - he recently shaved it off - even his moustache was tired of his lip!!

Now THAT'S funny!

"Jim Roth is a man of exceptional integrity, honest, hard working, smart, and good for Oklahoma - everything Rinehart is not."

No. Jim Roth has very low moral standards. If I am not mistaken, he is openly homosexual. That is something disgraceful, and disgusting. Roth needs to go.

Rinehart is a good guy, however, he has had a lot of bad press. WIll he win re-election in 2008? Probably not.

anderson, what does being gay have to do with being a good county commisioner?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Rinehart is a "good guy"??????
Only in a parallel universe.

------------

Being homosexual is NOT a good, upstanding morality... For ANY office. Not just County Commisioner.

Neither are arrogance, lying, corruption and hypocritical ethics, but that doesn't seem to preclude any of our current office holders on the local, state and federal levels.

They're all unethical, IMO, homosexuality included.

Right, so your bedroom habits according to some people who aren't affected by them whatsoever might be deviant.

Again, how does that affect the manner in which his District is adminsitrated in a negative way? If you're saying that our public officials ought to be free from sin, that's a pretty tall order. I guess you've never done anything to go against your own moral code of conduct ever?

How do you feel about sex outside of marriage? Is it not equally as deviant as homosexuality? That is to say that it (according to the Bible) is certainly immoral.. So which is worse and why?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Jim Roth is quite possibly the finest public official in the city. Well educated and articulate, and above all honest.

People who cannot look past his sexual orientation are blinded by hate, ignorance, and just plain stupidity.

He will be re-elected. I predict handedly

Not everyone feels that homosexuality is so terrible. I don't really care what someone does in their bedroom--it's so not my business.

Then again, I have engaged in some less than "upstanding" moral behaviors, including living together with someone before marriage; however, these things have had no negative impact whatsoever on my ability to do my job.

I don't choose to judge others for their home behavior, and I would hope that they would extend the same respect to me in return.

However, if someone is corrupt, spending our money for their gain, or doing things that are outright illegal, then no, they should not be allowed to hold a political office in my eyes. I've never really heard bad things about Jim Roth, except for people bashing his bedroom behaviors, which as I have stated I don't really care too much about.

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

I've been a Jim Roth supporter since his campaigning started. His interest is in improving Oklahoma County and, as many others have posted, I have no interest in his personal life.

On the other hand, I've known Rhinehart personally since he was in the Air Force. I am also very aware of his shady business practices and his scofflaw attitude. I KNOW (not speculation, but knowledge) of how he has violated federal and state laws as he used to brag about it. He will stop at nothing to further his own agenda and (incidently) he has the morals of an alley cat.

Again, I care nothing about someone's sexuality, but if mranderson thinks it is important, then I feel it should be brought to light.

__________________
Unions - the folks who brought you weekends!
Proud Army Mom

i disagree with the argument that 'if it happens behind closed doors then it's none of my business.' a significant portion of this world finds homosexuality to be immoral. if one finds this behavior reprehensible, then whether or not the 'offense' occurs publicly or privately makes no difference.

that's not to say that i totally disagree. while i find homosexuality to be immoral, i'm of the opinion that between two candidates for public office that honesty and track record have more bearing than sexual preference. -M

The fact that Jim Roth has admitted his sexual preference is further testament to his honesty. And to say a person is incapable of doing a good job because of their sexual preference is unfathomable and founded in ignorance and intolorence (two things we must right to truly advance as a society). It is not for mranderson or anyone else to sit in judgement of a person based on their sexual orientation. You are not god (and to judge another the way you are puts you even further from knowing god - at least the one I believe in). But if you are entirely above reproach and still want to sit in judgement - judge his performance as a public official and his track record of working to advance Oklahoma for ALL Oklahomans - not a select few.

i would agree with that, but i'm not so sure that the argument against mr. roth is based upon his abilities. i think that some people are against voting for a person who doesn't fit their moral view, regardless of ability. perhaps its not a fit in this situation, but i wouldn't go as far as to say that simply voting against someone who behaves contrary to your own moral compass is automatically ignorant and judgmental.

heh... labbri ardenti... i guess that makes you an italian flaming lips fan? : ) -M

I would agree, but those who are selective about the moral standards and insist that all public officials should be held to a certain moral standard should first make sure they themselves are living up to that moral standard -- consistently and completely. In other words, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." That's where the "moral compass" standard gets a little tricky.

brad,
i'm not so sure... i'd say that most people vote for those who fit the image of what they would like to be. the people we elect are usually expected to be 'model citizens.' given your logic, if i'm a thief then i have no business voting against a thief. i'm not without sin, so who am i to judge?

the problem i see in in this case is voting for a person who is believed to be crooked and self-serving over another individual who is perceived as conducting honest business but happens to be homosexual. that, to me, is judgmental. it's picking one sin over another. -M

Unfortunately, too many people will choose the crook over the honest homosexual.

agreed. -M

mmm - very estute - and while I am not italian, i play one on TV... lol

Even more evidence of why most consider us a backwoods state...Judge the man on his merits and not on his sexual affiliation...It's 2006 folks