Clark Matthews On November - 5 - 2009

matt jackson

By all accounts, I am a political junkie.  But lately I have heard my self uttering the cliched, “I’m tired of politics” way too often.

The morning after the Tuesday “Off Year” elections, I found myself watching Republican National Chairman Michael Steele getting into a shouting match with MSNBC contributer Lawrence O’Donnell because the journalist had the audacity to ask him a question about the main failure his party had the previous night.  Even worse, Steele refused to admit that mistakes were made in the RNC’s handling of the New York 23rd district congressional race.

Would it really have been difficult for Steele, who is supposed to be a professional, to say something along the lines of, “Yes, that stings a little since our party had held that seat for 139 consecutive years, but we are already researching the errors that were made and plan on starting a new streak–hopefully longer–when it comes back up for election next year.”  Instead, he bristled that O’Donnell didn’t gloss over the glaring loss and feed him more “How happy are you with last night’s results?” questions like Joe Scarborough who handed off to O’Donnell.  I’m sure the footage will be used in a future RNC mailing to prove bias in the media.

Later the same day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was touting the results of Tuesday nights as a great victory.  Finally, the kind of recognition that Steele wanted after referring to the night as a “transcendental win for the Republican Party.”  Problem is, Pelosi was declaring mission accomplished for the Democrats.  What-huh?

I can see from her standpoint, getting two more Democrats in her caucus, that the night was a success.  However, to pretend that Tuesday night was a night the Democratic Party should be happy about is delusional.  She did see that the two governor’s races in Virginia (not too surprisingly) and New Jersey (a typically liberal safe haven) both were won by members of the opposing party, right?  Then in Maine, the hopes of getting equal protection for homosexuals through popular vote was shot down by a 53-47.  Acting like Tuesday was just continued momentum after the 2008 landslides was stupid.

You know what else was stupid?  The campaigns leading up to the elections.  First, the New Jersey governorship was an issue-driven campaign…at least according to the victor, Chris Christie, whose acceptance speech was littered with self congratulatory idioms about how he proved you could win in New Jersey without resorting to personal attacks.  Except the last few weeks of the campaign revolved entirely around the issue of whether Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine had been referring to Christie’s weight problem with a subliminal message in an ad.  To his credit, Christie stayed above the fold, unless you count his constant public statements questioning Corzine’s machismo including, “Just man up and call me fat.”  (To be fair, the Corzine campaign probably was calling him a tub of lard.)

That New York 23rd was also a case study in clusterf’ing.  As has already been established, the seat has belonged to the GOP since the Civil War, and typically isn’t really contested.  But thanks to Sarah Palin’s efforts to become the conservative Ralph Nader, and the Republican’s selecting a social moderate in the run-off, the campaign became about conservatives eating their own.  In the end, the Republican nominee dropped out at the last minute and rather than endorsing the third-party Sarah Palin-approved conservative candidate (who looked like McLovin, had the personality of Bud Selig, and didn’t even live in the district) she chose to rally her supporters behind the Democrat who was basically an afterthought to the race but will be living in D.C. for at least a year.

After all that non-election year drama, we have the “mid-terms” to look forward to next year.  Think things will get any better with more races to draw our attention?  I doubt it.  Already, I’m reading headlines like this in The Oklahoman:

Oklahoma senate candidate’s sentence for bogus check has ended

Apparently, Matt Jackson, a republican and former sherriff’s deputy, will be running for the state senate seat that covers the district I live in.  Apparently, he also is a deadbeat check writer who luckily didn’t live in Wes Lane’s district back in 1999, or else he would have been prosecuted.  Instead, he didn’t learn that the check he wrote for $43.15 in Lawton that didn’t clear his bank account before it was closed until he did a background check on himself prior to declaring himself as a candidate.  Upon learning of it, he pled guilty to writing a hot check, paid the fine, and just finished serving his probation.  The article did not say if the store he wrote the check to ever took his check down from behind the counter.

Is this really news?  Is this what the campaign is going to be about–a guy who changed banks ten years ago not reporting all the outstanding checks?  Probably.  And while I probably won’t vote for Mr. Jackson, his poor book keeping at the age of 25 is not going to be one of the reasons.

Categories: Uncategorized

20 Responses

  1. onthestrip says:

    So, what you are saying is its politics as usual….and Sarah Palin screwing shit up as usual too.

  2. Yeah. But I was thinking we’d get a break this year, so I suspect that’s why it’s bothering me.

  3. turntablist says:

    I remember “Action Jackson” from high school football days…He was a badass running back.

  4. cowgirl_up says:

    blah! That’s me puking!

  5. Soonerken says:

    Well done, Clark. I too am somewhat of a political junkie but I got so irritated at the posturing and spinning by both sides after these elections, I quit watching the coverage. Here’s Obama’s press secretary saying the VA and NJ races didn’t mean anything because they were decided on “local issues”. Huh? I thought all politics was local.

    Then, there’s the Republican side claiming thay’d recaptured the magic and the results were a repudiation of Obama. Gimme a break. Corzine in NJ is an idiot with a lot of money and the Dem. candidate in VA had less pizzazz than a glass of warm skim milk.

    I’m afraid it’s never going to change and we’ll always be cursed with mediocre candidates and politicians whose only concern is re-election.

  6. Brett says:

    But why wouldn’t most campaigns today be about old stuff that doesn’t matter?

    My party nominated a man for the White House in 2004 who had been in the United States Senate for nearly 20 years by that time and most of his campaign focused not on anything he had accomplished during that tenure, but on military service completed more than half his lifetime before.

    News organizations embarrassed themselves by breaking stories about transgressions supposedly committed by Pres. Bush in the 1970s, even though they couldn’t actually authenticate their sourcing.

    Electability, not ability, is the key criterion for today’s candidates in the great majority of races. A dismally-qualified candidate with a spotless past or long-ago achievement will frequently be selected over a more qualified person who has even a minor skeleton in the closet or no guaranteed flash appeal. In short — “working the past,” so to speak, works both as burnishing the bloom on one’s own lackluster choice or tarnishing the shine of an opponent.

  7. Dave says:

    Scarborough is a Knave.

    Brett – you know who funded the people running those scam ads about that “United States Senate for nearly 20 years?” T. Boone Pickens and Aubrey McClendon. They bought and paid for the Swift Boat Vets, as they buy and pay for Inhofe as well. It stings a little, Oklahoma!

  8. TravisB says:

    I choose to get my political news from the Daily Show/Colbert Report. At least they admit to making stuff up, and they make me laugh.

  9. B.A. Baracus says:

    I have trouble electing any US Congressmen or Senator whether they have served 7 years, 20 years or 30 years. If they have been in Congress that long they have been bought and paid for by lobbyist already. They will just play the usual party politics. They all take love to point blame when something doesn’t work out and refuse to make themselves accountable, all the while continuing to give themselves pay raises while having a 23% approval rating….Politian’s, blah…

  10. Brett says:

    Dave –

    Yes, people used their interpretation of Sen. Kerry’s war record against him, but I was referring to the fact he and his campaign also used it for him much more than they did anything about his record in the Senate. He may have lived in the shadow of his state’s senior senator, but he did do some things in the Senate and those things seem to me to be much more germane to what he might do as president than was his service as a 25-year-old man in Vietnam.

    He had opposed Pres. Reagan’s support of anti-Communist movements in Latin America and his 1985 trip to Nicaragua uncovered information that would eventually lead to the Iran-Contra scandal. For people who might be opposed to the war in Iraq but undecided about their choice, might not that information have been more important to tipping them towards him than his own emphasis on his military service? “I opposed a war we fought for the wrong reasons when President Reagan tried it, and I oppose it now when George W. Bush tries it,” or something like that. But for whatever reason, he reached back to something much less wonky and which reflected much better on him, even though it told us much less about what he might do as president than did his work in the Senate.

  11. Bless Your Heart says:

    http://www.chilihack.com/

    Come and talk politics and drink beer. Some people also make chili, but you know, why let free chili ruin a good buzz?

  12. Ben73116 says:

    I’ve known the Jackson family for most of my 31 years and they’re absolutely top drawer people. And that’s all I have to sa about that.

  13. ElR says:

    It is literally impossible for a bogus check to be an accident. No matter how “top drawer” he is, it’s a crime of intentional fraud that he pled guilty to. Just saying.

  14. ElR says:

    Jackson with Sally Kern talking about how moral he is while he’s still on probation:

    http://tinyurl.com/lx2urh

  15. rockogre says:

    Doomed! Doomed I tell ya.

  16. BigBadBob says:

    ElR Said:
    Nov 5th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
    It is literally impossible for a bogus check to be an accident. No matter how “top drawer” he is, it’s a crime of intentional fraud that he pled guilty to. Just saying.

    BS.

    Most bogus checks are not on purpose. I make a crap ton of money and my wife has bounced 5 checks this year. I’m jsut lucky my bank would rather have my 30 bucks a pop and pays them rather than return them.

    Besides, bogus checks shouldn’t be crimes. A check is a contract to pay, and if there is not enough money in the account to pay, you breached a contract. In very few other cases can you be put in jail for breaching a contract.

    Listen, I get a few hot checks paid to me a year, and it sucks. But I choose to continue to take checks. If I was really that worried about it, I would get one of those fancy check clearing machines that make sure there is enough money in the account.

  17. ElR says:

    Bounced checks are not bogus checks. Bogus checks are by definition intentional. That’s what I’m saying. You’re right, what you describe has happened to you and a lot of people is not illegal or a bogus check. A bogus check is when you intentionally write a check in order to steal merchandise, as opposed to a bounced check. It should really be called stealing. Then it might not get confused with a bounced check, which it isn’t. If this guy pled guilty to a bogus check, which he did, he had to admit that he did it on purpose. No matter what he said in that article, he said something different to the authorities.

  18. ElR says:

    Here’s the crime of bogus check in Oklahoma, if this helps. Pay attention to the very first sentence (“intent to cheat and defraud”). This is not a bounced check. Whatever this guy said in that article is clearly not what he told police when he pled guilty to a crime and was sentenced to six month probation:

    21 O.S. 1541.1:

    Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain or attempt to obtain from any person, firm or corporation any money, property or valuable thing, of a value less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), by means or by use of any trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation or statement or pretense, or by any other means or instruments or device commonly called the “confidence game”, or by means or use of any false or bogus checks, or by any other written or printed or engraved instrument or spurious coin, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

  19. BigBadBob says:

    Wow,

    Not to put too fine a point on it, and I know that we here try to be more “funny” than your run of the mill message board, but you don’t know anything about the criminal justice system if you think that they only charge people who violated the specific letter of the law, and that 100% of those that plead guilty are in fact guilty.

    Here is the process in my fair county, and most others in OK (which I happen to know quite a bit about)

    1. Check Bounces, gets turned over to DA’s office
    2. Form letter goes out to last known address by regular mail (not certified, no research to see if they are still there, just last known)
    3. A lot of people don’t get those letters, and may or may not know there is a bounced check out there.
    4. No contact, charge is filed.
    5. By this time, the check bouncer doesn’t have the money, whatever.

    There are many, many prosecutions and convictions for bogus checks out there where there was absolutely NO intent to cheat or defraud, life just happened. Make it right? Nope. But it is not always a bunch of people writing checks they KNOW are going to bounce.

  20. ElR says:

    Well, that’s maybe an explanation of the prosecution. It’s not an explanation for the guy pleading guilty. I sure wouldn’t plead guilty to an intentional fraud if I hadn’t done it. That’s a serious crime that’s going to come up every time this guy applies for a job for the rest of his life. So the guy’s either stupid, or he’s lying to NewsOK.

    Apologize to everyone for this non-funny discussion.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.