I learn from Sinister that Tulsa World covered the Join the Impact! event there with a pretty decent article. No shocker: it was a not insignificant news event in the city (300 in attendance) and the city’s NEWSpaper did a little writeup about it.

But the 300 that attended the corresponding rally in Oklahoma City (not to mention the thousands across the country) were ignored by the city’s paper — I no longer will incorrectly call it a “newspaper” but it is printed on paper, so at least that part’s true. Again, no surprise, because the Oklahoman habitually refuses to cover the news and events that come from the liberal or progressive end of the political spectrum. “Habitually refuses” is a nice way of saying they have conspired and are conspiring to erase our existence from their pages. It is the largest paper in the state (though shrinking rapidly! Yay!) and it still has a lot of influence in political and cultural arenas (again, less and less so thanks to the internet) so the conspiracy is not piddling, even as their overall status is being reduced.

The OKC event did get covered by a couple of local TV news teams, which is great, but that doesn’t lessen the harm done by being erased from history time and again by the Oklahoman.

Frankly, I’m fed up with it and am resolved to do something about it. I’m exploring several options — including boycotts, petitions, demonstrations. A meeting with the paper’s management is a good place to start, but without some kind of threat to their revenue, I wouldn’t expect such a meeting to have any effect — those people are ideological and have to be moved by other forces than an appeal to simple fairness.

I lived in Waco, Texas, for a while, and I guarantee you that that area is politically and culturally more conservative overall than Central Oklahoma, yet the newspaper there covered peace and justice events — and not just during the nearby Camp Casey action in August 2005, but before that and well after. We might have liked more expansive and positive coverage, and they didn’t cover every single thing we did — no one expects that. But we regularly got a photo of an action — even if only four or five people participated. But they didn’t ignore our press releases, or refuse to send a camera person and/or reporter when they had one available, or keep the fact of our existence and work hidden from their readers. They covered the fucking news that was happening in their community!

Thankfully, the Web gives citizens the opportunity to participate in a new kind of journalism that is rising from the grassroots. Old media is losing this battle because they don’t or can’t adjust to new realities. They are making attempts to use the Internet, but struggling to find a successful method to make it profitable.

So if the Oklahoman wants to continue their march to obsolecence, they can continue to alienate a significant portion of their community by being ideological and reactionary beyond all reason. I’ll dance on their grave, but in the meantime, I expect them to function as the newspaper they purport to be and once in a while cover events their owners and editorial board don’t necessarily endorse.

Oh, and the effing letters to the editor situation is also now on the table. Enough! We’re not going to take it anymore!

I know that we all complain about the Oklahoman and that those who’ve lived here a lot longer than I have maybe just become resigned to the status quo. I hope that we can all band together at this vulnerable moment for the Oklahoman’s bottom line, and make the changes we need happen. Yes, we can!

Stay tuned, I will elaborate about some action steps on this in the near future.

The whole world is trying to figure out what’s up with us here in Red Dirt land. Last Tuesday, for good or bad, we certainly took a different tack, and everyone wants to know why.

The great blog Down With Tyranny regularly has insightful posts about Oklahoma politics, with some of the best rants against Inhofe for years now, and was a good source of info about the Andrew Rice campaign. Today, a look at what the hell happened in Oklahoma last Tuesday. Leading in to the piece is a photo from the Dust Bowl which still epitomizes Oklahoma’s seemingly hopeless situation.

Can You Guess Which State Was The Most Reactionary In This Year’s Elections? Hint: Think Rodgers and Hammerstein

But the state least connected to the American mainstream and most politically isolated on Tuesday was poor, sad, reactionary Oklahoma, which gave almost 66% of it’s vote, the most of any state, to McCain. While analysts are working on a post-mortem, or autopsy, on McCain’s no longer twitching campaign, Oklahomans must be wondering what’s wrong with the rest of America.

Daily Kos’s most famous and beloved Okie diaries, droogie6655321, riffed off Thomas Frank’s 2005 examination of Kansas politics, with What’s the Matter with Oklahoma?

What I’m not interested in is sweeping generalities about Oklahomans. If you want to call us all ignorant, misinformed, racist or backward, I suggest you do it an upcoming open thread and not here. As unfathomable as it may seem to us, there is a reason why Oklahomans choose Republicans over Democrats, and I want to know why.

Droogie’s question generated 988 comments and was followed by Sooner Kos discussion threads here and here

The traditional media weighed in on the anomaly which is Oklahoma. The New York Times:

Where Tuesday’s Tide Was All Republican

“Oklahoma Democrats, with very few exceptions, are the old-line white Southern Democrats,” said David Ray, another political scientist at the university. “They don’t like liberals or liberalism.”

Indeed, the state has a political landscape closely resembling that of the old solidly Democratic South, especially in its southeastern corner, known as Little Dixie, where many Southerners settled after the Civil War. When conservatives of the Old South began abandoning the party decades ago, Oklahoma’s Democrats lagged behind the historical trend. Further, the state has relatively small black and Hispanic populations, and so the Democrats did not absorb as many new voters from those groups as in the states of the old Confederacy.

These days Oklahoma Democrats dread running for local office in presidential election years, for fear of being associated with liberal nominees at the top of the ticket.

“Being liberal in Oklahoma, with the exception of a few legislative districts, will not get you elected,” said State Representative Joe Dorman, a conservative Democrat.

[...]

But Mr. Gaddie said that perhaps the most important factor in Mr. McCain’s strong showing here was religion. An Edison/Mitofsky exit poll found that more than half of Oklahoma voters identified themselves as evangelical Christians and that a heavy majority of them had voted for Mr. McCain.

Mr. Gaddie, himself a pollster as well as a college professor, said: “A question we always ask in our polls is ‘How often do you attend church services?’ If a Democrat is not going to vote for a Democrat, they are a frequent church attender.”

Another advantage for Mr. McCain was that the state’s economy, based mostly on the oil and gas industry, has been buffered somewhat from the national economic slowdown. Unemployment remains low, the housing market stable.

For all of that, the Democratic Party is far from dead in Oklahoma, especially in the state’s southeastern section, where, despite the social conservatism, many people still talk about the New Deal and revere Franklin D. Roosevelt.

and Washington Post also remarked on the Oklahoma phenom.

As Much of Nation Went Blue, Okla. Applied Extra Coat of Red

Exit polls found that more than half of Oklahoma voters identified themselves as white, evangelical or born-again Christians. Of those, a heavy majority went for McCain.

State Republican Chairman Gary Jones said it was “not so much an issue of race,” but rather of conservative Oklahomans voting against someone known as “the most liberal member of the Senate.”

Jones said the conservative positions of McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, helped motivate Oklahoma voters.

One thing all these analysts seem to agree on is that Oklahoma not being so hard hit by the economic downturn played a part in the election results. We just aren’t hurting as bad as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, et. al.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But in Oklahoma, the pain wasn’t great enough to trump the other ideology (”family values”) and/or misconceptions about Obama as elsewhere in the nation.

If Obama does a good job as president, which I expect him to do, perhaps Oklahomans will at least drop the latter rationale for not voting for him when he runs for re-election in 2012.

This is destined to be a classic: Mika Brzezenski defending Sarah Palin, Lawrence O’Donnell telling Pat Buchanan, who can’t stop fawning over Sarah Palin and lying about her impact on the ticket, that “yours is the party that celebrates ignorance” then asking if he believes in evolution. Then Pat’s head explodes. Monkeys! And Mika babbles in disbelief (okay, that last part happens all the time).

TV worth watching, I’m telling you!

The political seismic shift that occurred Tuesday night, compressed into ten minutes. I still tear up watching it. Thanks to Jed via Daily Kos.

The shame of western Oklahoma, The Oklahoman newspaper, has a semi-regular feature called "Monday Morning Quarterbacks," which mostly just reviews conservative voices. The only time they quote liberals or progressives is to mock or refute them. Like today:

CURDLE YOUR YERDLE
The Left Wing is playing for keeps this election cycle. The king of liberal/progressive blogging, Markos Moulitsas rallies the troops at dailykos.com with his own adaptation of Knute Rockne. Libs must "do everything necessary allowable under the law to win because elections have consequences," he writes. "This isn’t about who is most pure, but about taking the fight to the enemy ... and fighting fire with fire." Later Kos writes about having the "killer instinct," rubbing salt in conservatives’ wounds and forcing them to go into debt. What’s next, burning their villages?

Umm...project much?

In a wider discussion of the media’s long-time idolization of John McCain, Glenn Greenwald made this very important point about the militarization of our culture.

If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept — as disappointing and unglorious as it is — that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren’t in the military don’t have a “Commander-in-Chief.” The President isn’t your “commander,” and the “Commander-in-Chief” power, now synonymous in our political culture with “President,” is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”).

This endless festishization of “President as Our Commander-in-Chief” is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we’ve become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war. And — though I don’t think there’s a strong complaint to be made that the media generally has been unfair to Barack Obama — this “Commander-in-Chief” fetish is also one of the principal causes of the ongoing media reverence for John S. McCain.

This is precious. Today, in “Scissortails” a hodge-podge board editorial — usually good for a laugh anyway — the Oklahoman takes issue with something that happened on MSNBC during the Democratic Convention in Denver. (Now you know none of them were watching MSNBC, I’m sure they got this news of the on-air dustup between Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough from Little Green Footballs or something.)

Get the shovel!
When MSNBC host/commentator Joe Scarborough was discussing positive developments in the John McCain campaign, fellow commentator Keith Olbermann was heard to say, “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” When Olbermann opens his mouth, more than a shovel is needed — a backhoe, perhaps, or a front-end loader. Executives at NBC News/MSNBC finally came to their senses and yanked Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political coverage. The commentators were posing as newsmen on election nights and during the national political conventions. Fox News Network, which Olbermann frequently blasts, never used Bill O’Reilly in that capacity. In our view, Olbermann, Matthews and O’Reilly are all Cat 3 blowhards. They have their own shows and they shouldn’t be anchoring the news alongside Tom Brokaw or Brit Hume. With Olbermann on stage, NBC had become the “Nasty Broadcasting Network.” What took the execs so long to figure out it wasn’t appropriate for him to be an anchor?

Now, notice they didn’t mention exactly what it was that Joe was saying when Keith called him on it (inadvertently on mic or not). So let me help them, and you, out with this little video.

As usual, Joe Scarborough was reeling off the GOP talking points, which I guess is why the Oklahoman’s editorial board felt so at home with his commentary.

May I also point out again, that Joe Scarborough admitted to being a Republican tool with rare candor just the other day, which I diaried here.

MATTHEWS: [...] Two days from now — I want to ask you, what will we talk about two days from now?
SCARBOROUGH: Whatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about, because the McCain campaign is assertive. [...]

I’m sure we won’t be reading about that MSNBC dustup in the Oklahoman, ever.

And as for calling MSNBC the “Nasty Broadcasting Network” because of Keith. (Catchy phrase, no?) Though they were careful to lump Fox’s O’Reilly in their list of “Cat 3 blowhards,” they never called Fox “nasty” or anything approximate, despite years of dispicable behavior. No, the name calling is reserved for all things liberal — that’s the one constant from all Republicans ever since Nixon got pardoned and (Fox News owner) Rupert Murdoch dumped journalism in the toilet.

I love it when this happens. In fact, I love it so much, I’m going to post such occasions regularly.

Republican tool Joe Scarborough [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 9/10/08]

MATTHEWS: [...] Two days from now — I want to ask you, what will we talk about two days from now?
SCARBOROUGH: Whatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about, because the McCain campaign is assertive. [...]

[Emphasis mine.]

Here’s a fine example of the slimy tactics of Republicans these days, courtesy of Oklahoma’s senior senator, Jim Inhofe (R-Exxon): Don’t claim outright Obama isn’t patriotic, just say voters “can question whether or not he really loves his country[.]”

Regardless of what polls show, Inhofe said, voters will have to ask themselves a question once they get behind the curtain in the voting booth on Election Day.

“Do you really want to have a guy as commander in chief of this country when you can question whether or not he really loves his country?” he asked.

“That’s the big question.”

In the same Tulsa World article, Inhofe is quoted lying about the polls after the Democratic convention.

… [Obama] goes into their convention and comes out of the convention without a lead,” he said.

“That’s unheard of.”

Nice cherrypicking of the polls there, Jim. And, I might add, not getting a bounce is not unheard of.

The perfect example of this phenomenon is the 1964 conventions. Goldwater got a huge bump, in part because he was running 16 points behind his expected vote share, and Johnson got no bump, in part because he was running 6 points above his expected vote share.

Remind me who won that election, again?

But back to the “question” of patriotism.

For simpletons like Inhofe, who just has to have enough brain power to hold his hand out when Big Oil is passing out money, patriotism is measured with bombs, flag-waving and lapel pins. Caring about your fellow Americans enough to work at low pay for their rights and needs — that’ll get you nothing but sarcastic derision as a wastrel. Obviously, Republicans believe if you aren’t using the public treasury to steal from the poor to give to the rich, you just don’t have a real job.

Oh, and by the way, if we’re gonna be the flag pin police, where the hell was McCain’s flag pin when he gave the most important speech of his life on Thursday?

It was nowhere to be seen — maybe he left it at one of his (Cindy’s really) seven houses, along whatever integrity he ever had before he fell to his knees before the evangelicals who have taken over his party. Without that symbol flashing on his chest for his big moment, I guess we are all free now “question” how much McCain really loves his country.

Of course, that’s not how rational, decent people think or operate. Just Republicans.

But I’m not playing coy with my take on Senator Jim Inhofe; I’m saying flat out he’s a lying, corrupt, moronic, and mean-spirited snake. Flat out, no questions about it.

Update: This story in TW got front-paged at Daily Kos and is generating lots of donations to Andrew Rice’s campaign and the Orange to Blue ActBlue page. Yay! The more money Rice has, the more he can get himself known across the state; and the more he is known, the closer the race gets. Andrew went from 19% to 41% in the last poll, and Inhofe is having to hustle to save his job. So, please, Jim, say some more vile things about Obama we can use for fundraisers. C’mon, you know you want to.

Update II: Holy cow, that DK post is causing a flood — of $$$ for Andrew. SusanG reports:

You guys are AWESOME. In two-and-half hours, 117 of you donated for more than $4,300 … should we shoot for 150 by midnight Pacific Time? Let’s see if we can do it.

I hope to get a report from the campaign tomorrow (or Monday) about how much came in on their page.

Update III (and final?):

Final Update: Over the top! Way over the top … 220 contributors, for a total of $7,805. You guys are the best. What an awesome way to spend a Saturday night, kicking some donkey, eh?

Update IV: Yet more donations reported.

Major kudos to the Daily Kos community! Responding to last night’s call to make sure there was hell to pay for James Inhofe questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism, the community raised $10,797 for Inhofe’s progressive challenger Andrew Rice.

Update V: Just found this at Media Matters

Tulsa World reported Inhofe’s smears of Obama’s patriotism without rebutting purported evidence

Summary: A Tulsa World article uncritically quoted Sen. James Inhofe stating, “I am not questioning Sen. [Barack] Obama’s patriotism, but you have to question why at times he seems so obviously opposed to public displays of patriotism and national pride, like wearing an American flag lapel pin.” The article failed to note that Obama is not “opposed” to “wearing an American flag lapel pin” or that Sen. John McCain reportedly said he doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin on a daily basis.