Rep. Oden Considers Future Races
Rep. Jeremy Oden (R - Vinemont) spent a few minutes in the Parlor to address rumors heard here, the first one being that he may run for Public Service Commission President this year. Republican Jim Sullivan will step down after serving in the position for 25 years.
Yes, he said, he was considering it. He would say that there was about a 50-50 chance that he would run for PSC President.
What about the rumor that he might run for State Treasurer in 2010? He brightened up as he quickly indicated that he was considering it. The likelihood of running for Treasurer is “more than 50-50.” He added that he could not now say that he would, and that he would “have to factor in” what happens in the party on the matter. Incumbent Kay Ivey is serving her last term because of term limits.
“I’ve given more thought to State Treasurer. The PSC race I only started considering 2 or 3 weeks ago. I am not saying I wouldn’t. Again, I want to see how the party lines up.”
“You may know that I’m not the most favored among Republicans, but as far as a statewide race, I’d be strong.”
I’ll concede his point about not being the most favored among Republicans. For example, ALFA, who is often quite supportive of Republican candidates, supported Oden’s Republican primary opponent in 2006 and then also his Democratic opponent in the general election. The Business Council of Alabama also supported his primary opponent. Despite that and a fundraising disadvantage in both elections, Oden was re-elected to a third term by 8 percentage points.
Remembering that, I asked if he had considered changing parties. “No, I’ll run as a Republican. That’s where my base is.”
Related Articles:
I have removed this comment.
I have no quarrel with disagreement, even vehement disagreement, over substantive issues. Let’s be civil about it.
Comment by Danny — February 13, 2008 @ 11:29 am
The post by Scorpius above is disgustingly juvenile.
Comment by Anonymous — February 13, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Scorpius is on a roll today. First he claims “All Dems know how to do is mock [God], if they even acknowledge Him,” now this. In light of this response, his disdain for others apparently extends to many of his fellow Alabama Republicans. Sounds like… wait… is Scorpius actually Troy King?
(That is a joke, I have no clue who Scorpius actually is.)
Comment by SamfordDem — February 13, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
If Sullivan, Cook and Parker can devise public policy with their collective and individual limited mental abilities, in addition to their craven, miscreant personalities in the face of alabama power’s largesse, then why should we fear anyone named Twinkle? The PSC is nothing more than a lapdog for corruption. I bet my inheritance the FEDS are watching those goings on, just like Siegelman and the 2 year college corruption. After all, what is the difference between Roy Johnson and Jim Sullivan? W.L. Langston and Susan Parker (both work for JUCO’s). Jan Cook and Buddy Hamner? Corrupt knaves all.
Comment by Diogenes — February 13, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
I take exception to the comments from Diogenes especially related to Susan Parker. I understand Parker to be a hard-working public servant of integrity. As for the “limited mental abilities” you allege, Parker earned her PhD while working full-time during the day.
Parker did work at a junior college but hasn’t for many years. But what’s your point? Are you saying that everyone who works or has ever worked at a junior college is a “corrupt knave?” That’s ridiculous.
Irresponsible comments like this contribute to the deterioration of the political process. If you have something specific to allege, then say it. Otherwise, forego the name-calling.
Comment by Lantern — February 14, 2008 @ 3:23 am
Funny thing that Diogenes should mention Twinkle Cavanaugh. That comment has the hallmark of a classic Twinkle smear, trying to besmirch others by name-calling and suggesting association with unsavory others but not actually providing supporting facts.
Comment by Not Twinkle — February 14, 2008 @ 7:56 am
God-haters have found a home in the Democrat party, there’s no denying that fact. They file lawsuits, organize protests, get elected to office, serve as judges, and fund organizations which further their cause and agenda.
Conservatives believe in an enduring moral code, Liberals don’t. Our moral code is based on Judeo-Christian tenets, the Libs prefer moral “anarchy.”
How any Christian can reside comfortably within a party that enthusiastically and arduously supports abortion, infanticide, homosexual marriage and adoption of children, as well as the removal of prayer, religious expressions, exhibits, and symbols from public places is beyond me. I would never embrace–let alone claim membership to— any group or faction that held such disdain for the Truth.
Also, I’ll say this. I’m not going to whine about the censorship of my fulmination yesterday, but I do take issue with Danny’s consistency regarding censorship. Although its his unquestioned right to allow or disallow whatever content he wishes, my comments were certainly no worse in language or degree than Diogenes’.
So be it.
And, no, I’m not Troy King nor any other elected official.
Comment by Scorpius — February 14, 2008 @ 11:13 am
I can only speak for myself but, as a Baptist American, both my denomination and my country were founded on a strong belief in the separation of church and state. Both were founded by people that understood one institution almost inevitably corrupts the other. I do think some people take that too far; there is a difference between the government acknowledging the role Christianity (or any other faith) has played in the development of this nation and the government endorsing one particular faith.
The first is a great thing; the second is a violation of the principles our nation was founded upon. In my own life, the Bible determines what and what is not moral; the Constitution determines what should and should not be legal. Therefore, I can believe abortion is an immoral act (which I do), and still not believe it should be illegal. The same goes for gay marriage. Since you are defining infanticide as an act separate from abortion, I am not aware of any Democratic organizations that support infanticide as you define it.
Your statement about conservatives believing in a single “enduring moral code” is bunk, Scorpius. There is no single Judeo-Christian tradition; even among groups that call themselves conservatives, there are thousands upon thousands of different denominations and churches and sects and orders that disagree on fundamental moral issues. There are moral laws about which there is almost universal agreement, such as thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal. That is because those acts inevitably infringe upon the rights of others, which makes them unconstitutional as well. In short, moral issues are much too important to be determined by the government.
Comment by SamfordDem — February 14, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Samford Dem, please quote to me the appropriate text in the Constitution which ensures a citizen the right to kill an unborn child.
Comment by Anonymous — February 14, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
I will as soon as you show me the appropriate text in the Consitution - not the Bible - that says life begins at conception because otherwise your question is irrelevant. I have no question that abortion is morally wrong. I just have difficulty finding anything in the Constitution that guarantees the rights of the unborn must supercede the rights of their mothers.
Comment by SamfordDem — February 14, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
The reason it (the right to life) is not in the Constitution is, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, we are ” . . .endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” They didn’t enumerate the right to life in the Constitution because it is “endowed by the Creator” and “inalienable.” GOVERNMENTS do NOT “endow” rights - the Constitution is about the rights GRANTED to GOVERNMENT by the GOVERNED - not the other way around.
The profound ignorance of today’s American liberals on this salient point is staggering - and quite sad.
Comment by John Locke — February 14, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Right… “the Constitution is about the rights GRANTED to GOVERNMENT by the GOVERNED,” which, as the Supreme Court has ruled, does not include preventing a woman from having an abortion.
Comment by Anonymous — February 14, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
The Constitution is a living document. The framer’s could no envision every hypothetical or imagine everything on the horizon so it should not come as a shock that the right to life is not spelled out in the constitution. The beauty of the document is that it provides for amendments to it as the nation changes or encounters new obstacles that they could not foresee.
The abortion issue is so tiresome. Here we go again with the nutjobs on both sides of the aisle coming out of the woodwork.
Reminds me of a guy I spoke with recently [prior to Feb 5] that told me the two most important issues to him in the Republican primary were 1) Abortion and 2) Gay marriage. I really couldn’t help chuckle. But really, that was an inappropriate response. The correct one should have been one of pity.
I feel pity for the nuts who are still running around singing about the abortion and gay marriage issues.
The economy? Immigration? Iraq war? Trade deficit? Budget deficit? Housing crisis? Social security reform? No they’re not important. Just give me a shovelful of Pat Robertson and let me rest easy at night.
Bueller…..Bueller….anyone…are there more pressing needs than regulating morality and having worn out 30 year old circular argument?
Comment by Nixon — February 14, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
One more thing for clarification, I’m a republican. I’m just more than a little tired of the religious nuts hijacking my party for the last 15 years or so.
It’s just more than a little amusing when the traditionally small government party [GOP] wants to play big government when it comes to regulating morality and telling people how to live their lives.
But i wouldn’t expect any of the nuts to know this since they aren’t really republicans. they just jumped on the band wagon when all the wackos came over. I’d really rather lose elections than have to deal with these people any longer. They’re really not much different than the mujahdeen.
Democrats, please take them with you. Pretty please with a cherry on top.
Comment by Nixon — February 14, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Anonymous # 9, how can someone “kill” an “unborn” child?
Roe v. Wade gives women the legal right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — February 14, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
All I know is that abortion stops a beating heart.
The woman and the man both made their choice but unfortunately, the baby doesn’t get to decide whether or not he or she gets to live. It’s a tough issue but
one that at least should be a decision between “both” parents, not just the mother.. One can also decide whether or not one wants to live, but just go out on the streets and try to commit suicide and see what happens to you. By the way the scriptures do say “I (GOD) knew you in your mothers womb.” Not a lawyer but I think if you know someone, it is a someone, not just an “it”
Comment by poljunkie — February 14, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Corrections for SamDem…
-Institutions don’t inevitably corrupt one another. Imperfect men with ill-motives corrupt.
-Please go back and re-read history. The country was NOT founded on a strong belief in separation of church and state. This is Liberal-Leftist revisionism. The Founders were of varied stripes regarding faith denominations, but they, the laws they produced and the institutions that they constructed and were prevalent at the times were deeply rooted in morality and the proper place of religion. There is so much scholarship and and documentation of this that your denials subsist upon lunacy or lies.
-The Bible and the Constitution need not be mutually exclusive as you suggest. Yes, it is possible to be morally/philosophically opposed to a particular action and then behave indifferently politically/legally as to the action’s public effects, but, this is the namby-pambyism of Liberalism that disgusts and offends Conservatives. Thus, the crux of ideological standoffs.
Personally, although I’m not doubting your salvation for a nano-second, I do question your maturity and commitment in your Walk.
Christians are to be the salt. If you have no qualms regarding glaring inconsistencies and obvious disconnects between knowing what is morally right and either failing to condemn what is wrong or shrugging your shoulders and looking the other way, then you are either a coward or a willing accomplice for continued immorality. Burke admonished folks like you.
-So-called “Partial-birth” abortion is infanticide and is embraced and advocated by the Democrat Party and its Left-leaning subsidiaries (see: Clinton and the Congressional Dems in the 1990’s, the Dem Party Platform and N.O.W.).
-And finally, I didn’t say there was a “single Judeo-Christian tradition.” I said that we Conservatives believe in an enduring moral code (What is right and what is wrong, regardless of the Ages and individuals) that is based on tenets (ends in an “s” there) which are derived from Judeo-Christian traditions and Scripture.
You contend that moral issues are much too important to be determined by government, and so my question to you is this, “What comprises government, more specifically our government?”
When you can answer that question, you’ll be well on you way to discovering the theory on social compacts and all its proper functions and ramifications.
Comment by Scorpius — February 14, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Oh, regarding SamDem’s retort in #11, I could not have responded more accurately or more succinctly than John Locke did in response #12.
I agree 100%.
Liberals, when are you going to stop reading “The World According to the ACLU” and actually read the Founding documents and contemporary literature for YOURSELVES???
Your abounding ignorance ought to embarrass you if you, indeed, care at all about intellectual honesty. (Which I know many of you don’t.)
Comment by Scorpius — February 14, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Scorpius,
Going back to your comment #7 (the conversation has ranged far afield since then)… I really dislike policing comments, and I am loathe to do it. But in case you are curious, on that rare occasion that a comment gets deleted, here’s how it happens.
1. I read something that hits me in the gut as over the top, a step too far. (Occasionally someone will contact me about a comment that they believe crosses a line.)
2. I check with some folks who are in an informal close circle who offer thoughts on the blog and ask if they think it’s over the top. Sometimes they don’t and say things like, “Well, it may be offensive to a point, but I know you hate to get on that slippery slope, so I’d let it stay.” Other times they agree that it crosses a line and tell me they’d delete it if it were their blog. I put a lot of weight on what they say.
3. I err on the side of leniency because I so dislike getting into this.
4. While I do not care for any ad hominem attacks, I particularly dislike them when they are directed at some public figure who has been generous to offer time, opinions, insights, or other help to this blog. I don’t want insult-filled comments so ugly, irrelevant, and insubstantial that public figures are reluctant to be as generous as they have been.
And there you have it… it starts with my gut.
In my third year, and I think fewer than 10 comments have been deleted.
:)
Comment by Danny — February 15, 2008 @ 12:14 am
Partial birth abortion is infanticide. And the notion that because something isn’t born doesn’t mean it’s not alive is a logical fallacy. Unborn children take in nutrition, excrete waste, move around, sleep and wake. These are the same functions as a living person. Further, many premature babies are able to survive when born weeks before the 40th week of gestation. I’m not certain when life starts, but it is sometime long before the 40th week of gestation.
Comment by Margaret — February 15, 2008 @ 7:54 am
Scorpius,
Unless you know of some perfect men (or women) somewhere - apart from Jesus Christ - you have proven my point. The Church and the State exercise two very different kinds of authority; attempts to intermingle the two have been disastrous for both institutions because… a corrupt figure on one side almost always attempts to exercise undue influence on the other. Whether its Franco or Hitler co-opting their state churches to achieve their own abominable ends or Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollahs trying to keep everyone under sharia, it’s the same principle.
You may be surprised to know I am in favor of outlawing partial birth abortion. Which puts me to the right of many in your party on that issue, such as Rudy “Public Financing for Abortions” Giulliani and Mitt “I was Pro-Choice (and anti-Reagan) before I started running for President” Romney. My party tolerates a wide variety of opinions on this issue. Clearly, so does yours.
Thousands of different Judeo-Christian traditions, and you claim that you and your fellow conservatives have been able to whittle that down to “an (as in one single) enduring moral code.” For many of those Christian traditions, part of their moral code is that Jews are condemned to hell. How do you square such contradictions in a single moral code?
Of course, Scorpius, “we the people” are the government. That was the answer you wanted, right? Of course that just makes it all the more frightening when I hear conservatives clamoring for “less government” and when they declare that “government is the problem.”
Your comments about me personally are a) false. I’m stronger in my faith than I’ve ever been. b) cowardly. It’s easy to hide behind the computer and make ignorant claims about people you don’t know. This website is actually about legitimate political dialogue. You want to act like a third-grader toy was taken away.
Finally, your party, which just in the past year has featured a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage frontrunner for the presidential nomination (Rudy and Mitt, at different times), a pedophile, corruption galore, and of course a fundraiser for Islamist terrorists (these are just national stories I’m sure there’s more) has no claim to being the party of moral authority. My party never made that claim.
The End.
Comment by SamfordDem — February 15, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Back to Jeremy Oden….did he say why he thought he’d be strong statewide? Is Paul Hubbert really going to help him out that much?
Comment by Montgomery Republican — February 15, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Hubbert wants him right where he is. If he leaves, Hubbert loses a reliable minion.
Hubbert would gain nothing in Oden’s position as PSC Prez or as Treasurer. (Boy, its hard to keep from guffawing while I type those preposterous scenarios.)
Comment by Scorpius — February 15, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Oden’s relationship with the GOP establishment seems to have a lot in common with McCain’s (obviously on a much smaller level). They hate him but he keeps on winning and picking up independent and Democratic supporters along the way. Neither one of these races may pan out for him, but those who underestimate Oden do so at their own peril. Of course I’d love to see the Dems get another shot at an open house seat as well.
Comment by SamfordDem — February 15, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
[…] Rep. Jeremy Oden (R - Eva) had considered running for President of the Public Service Commission this year but tells the Parlor that he is going to sit out that race to focus on his greater interest, a run for State Treasurer in 2010. Current work commitments and a desire to be best prepared for the Treasurer’s race lead him to pass on the PSC race, despite the encouragement he says he has received toward his interest in the PSC position. Terms limits will prevent incumbent Treasurer Kay Ivey (R) from running again in 2010. […]
Pingback by Oden Passes on PSC, Eyes Treasurer Spot » Doc’s Political Parlor — March 28, 2008 @ 10:13 pm