The Never Changing World

Those wacky World opinion shapers are at it again. This time, taking the four councilors they love to hate to task for not listening to the inate wisdom of Interim City Attorney Alan "the Jackal" Jackere's advice. In fact, they went so far as to say that Judge Shaffer's decision on Tulsan's for Election Integrity's petitions to toss out the recall petitions, vindicated Jackere.

Oh what short memories these maroons have. Let me take you back to the not so distant past when they were similarly opining on the council, the courts and their own perceptions of what was good jurisprudence.

February 5, 2004
Headline: A City Council incumbent and a challenger are separated by only four votes.

World's news writers talk about how close the District 3 Democrat primary race is between incumbent David Patrick and former D3 councilor Roscoe Turner.

February 6, 2004
Headline: Election Snafu?

"Roscoe Turner, who lost to David Patrick by four votes in the Tuesday Democratic primary election for District 3 City Council, claims the "fix" was in; that he actually won, according to his calculations.
Not likely."

February 21, 2004
Headline: It's Official: Patrick Wins

"Challenge to District 3 council race is dismissed More than two weeks after the votes were cast, a Tulsa County judge finally affirmed Friday that City Councilor David Patrick was re-elected to the District 3 race.

"District Judge Tom Gillert dismissed what he called a "deficient petition" alleging voter irregularities in the Democratic primary that decided the seat.

"Roscoe Turner, who lost the race by three votes after a manual recount Thursday, said he will explore whether to appeal the decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court."

[Note: the accompanying photo showed a distraught Turner, hand on his forehead in disbelief in the foreground, while media (in the background) swarm a triumphant David Patrick.]

February 27, 2004
Headline: Turner seeks court's aid in disputed race

"The City Council District 3 challenger wants a judge forced to hear evidence of alleged voter irregularities.

"Roscoe Turner has asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to order a Tulsa County district judge to hear evidence of alleged voter irregularities..."

February 28, 2004
Headline: Let's move on, World's Editorial Writers

"A cloud continues to hang over the outcome of the District 3 City Council race. Please, someone make this go away.

"Roscoe Turner, who once held the District 3 seat, was beaten by a mere three votes by incumbent Councilor David Patrick...."

"The odds are that the Supreme Court referee will uphold the district judge's ruling. But, maybe it would be better if the case were sent back to district court where the brouhaha could be put to rest. "

"The likelihood is that there are no irregularities in District 3. And if there are, they likely would be innocent mistakes that would not affect the final voter tally."

March 10, 2004
Headline: Election case is sent back

"A City Council candidate's claims of voting problems should be heard, the high court says.

"OKLAHOMA CITY -- The state Supreme Court has ordered a district judge to consider Roscoe Turner's claims of voter irregularities in Tulsa's District 3 City Council race. "

March 19, 2004
Headline: Judge orders new election in challenged city council race

"TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- Gov. Brad Henry has set a date of April 6 for a new election in a Tulsa City Council race after an earlier election was voided because of allegations of voting irregularities.

"Henry on Thursday ordered the special election between incumbent David Patrick and Roscoe..."

April 7, 2004
Headline: Challenger victorious in new vote

"Roscoe Turner defeats District 3 Council incumbent David Patrick.

"Voters finally put an end to the uncertainty in Tulsa's City Council District 3, choosing challenger Roscoe Turner over incumbent David Patrick in a special election Tuesday."

April 8, 2004
Headline: Allegations of voting irregularities surface

"Newly elected City Councilor Roscoe Turner and his wife are suspected of participating in voting irregularities in Tuesday's District 3 special election, officials said.

"The Turners allegedly gave rides to Republicans so they could cast votes in the closed Democratic election and..."

April 9, 2004
Headline: Big mess World's Editorial Writers,

"Council vote needs sorting out

"The election of a Tulsa city councilor in District 3 is a screwed up mess.

"The original Feb. 3 Democratic primary between incumbent David Patrick and the former councilor, Roscoe Turner, finished in a near draw in Patrick's favor."

"But this issue is broader than just the losing candidate's interest. After all, the election might have been tainted by illegal activity. "

"Election board members ought to search the law books to determine if the board can unilaterally decline to certify the results pending an investigation. A City Council vacancy would keep pressure on District Attorney Tim Harris to conduct a timely investigation."

"If that isn't possible under the law, Harris should move with some dispatch to investigate and, if crimes were committed, to prosecute."

"A finding of guilt would render the council post vacant and require a new election. This is a serious issue. In America's representative democracy the elective process is sacred. It should, to every extent possible, remain inviolate."

April 13, 2004
Headline: No wrongdoing, councilor insists

"Newly elected District 3 Councilor Roscoe Turner said Monday that he and his wife, Nancy, are confident they did nothing wrong in last week's election that resulted in allegations of voter irregularities against them."

"The Tulsa County Sheriff's Department is expected to investigate possible..."

April 14, 2004
Headline: Turner returns to Council amid vote probe

"The City Council is now complete, although claims of voter irregularities are being investigated.
"District 3 City Councilor Roscoe Turner was sworn in to office Tuesday, completing the installation of the nine-member council.

"'It's a pleasure to return home,' Turner said..."

April 18, 2004 [The Next Sunday Issue]
Headline: Step right up! JULIE DelCOUR Editorial Writer

"Will Tulsa's City Hall go back under the Big Top?"

"Shortly before the 2002 city elections, the Tulsa World, sensing the mounting exasperation of the community over the chronic bickering among the city's leadership, considered holding a Tulsa City Council "Survivor" Contest...."

"This past election voters, for their own reasons, turned out two incumbents, Art Justis and David Patrick. Jack Henderson was elected to District 1 when Joe Williams didn't seek re-election."

[Ms. DelCOUR laments how horrible the council was in 2000 and what a breath of fresh air the Class of 2002 was. However, she made no mention of the heavy investment in campaign cash made by officials at F&M Bank to "freshen the air." Then she continues:]

"It is far too early to conclude that City Hall again will become a three-ring circus complete with clowns. Some difference of opinion among councilors on how to handle council and city business is expected and, if done on the level, applauded."

"But what the city does not need is a variation on that old nursery rhyme involving several piggies and how they conducted their everyday affairs."

"Tulsa has too much at stake to have one little piggy going off to market, one little piggy having roast beef (even at Arby's) and another little piggy having none, so to speak."

"Two years from now citizens do not want to end up in a position in which they lost able public servants who, fed up with City Hall shenanigans, went crying "Whee, whee, whee, whee" all the way home."

Conclusion:
The pattern of reporting on an issue, followed by acrid tirades of injustice [against those they support] and fear of the return of pandimonium [best described as policies the Lorton's don't support] are standard at our newspaper of record.

Go back and read some of the recent stories detailing the recall election and decide for yourself if you think the World's editorial staff still thinks elections should be "inviolate." Ask yourself if they will ever admit that the Supreme Court exists to appeal a potentially inappropriate ruling by a lower court judge [one that is elected and can't risk making the paper too angry].

The bottom line is, these guys count on reader's having short memories, so that they can tell you what happened in the past, replete with their own revisions to history.

In this never-changing World, the only thing that is different today is their readership.

Small wonder why.