Mr. Richardson. Goodbye.

I was looking for clues to Gary Richardson's thinking and decision-making processes. As I mentioned yesterday, Richardson said he could not support a ban on cockfighting on a statewide basis. Richardson said he would handle it on a county-option basis because he did not think it right for the urban areas to tell rural counties what to do. If we carry this thinking to its "logical" conclusion we would have to ask Mr. Richardson if he believes it fair that the urban areas subsidize education in rural areas - as is currently the case. What if we extend this flawed line of thinking to the other issues the State Legislature and the Governor must deal with? Will abortion, gambling, speed laws, etc all be handled on a county option basis? Why not just abdicate all state law-making matters to the county level? Why would we need a Governor or a State Legislature at all?

Of course, anyone with the slightest sense sees Richardson's position on cockfighting as a cop-out as well as a lack of moral fiber. What do we need with such a candidate for Governor? Mr. Richardson, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Brad Henry, the Democrat candidate for Governor, says he can't support the ban on cockfighting because the penelties are too harsh. Of course, the penelties for dogfighting are exactly the same as the proposed penalties for cockfighting. Is Brad Henry also against the ban on dogfighting? Anyone with sense also sees Henry's position against the ban on cockfighting as a disingenuous cop-out. We don't need a Governor that can't manage enough spine to take a real position or one that is so loathsome as to cuddle with cockfighters.

As uncomfortable as I am with Steve Largent's extreme social conservatism, his love of the NRA, and his desire to put his religion in policy, I have to admire his principle-led decisions and his clear positions. I'm impressed with his clear opposition to the cockfighters.