Will a new candidate emerge at OU?
Will a new candidate emerge at OU?
Comments 
29
By John Greiner
Published: December 31, 2007
NORMAN — University of Oklahoma President David L. Boren and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia are convening a bipartisan group of nationally prominent political figures next Sunday and Monday to challenge presidential candidates to focus on serious issues.
Advertisement
What's the purpose?
The meeting's purpose probably is best described in the letter Boren and Nunn sent to those who are coming to Norman.
"Today we are a house divided. We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available — without regard to political party — to help lead our nation,” they wrote.
The issues Boren and Nunn believe should be discussed in the presidential campaign include:
•A national strategy to deal with the nation's fiscal challenges.
•Educational, energy and environmental challenges.
•The "dangerous turbulence triggered by the current financial crisis.”
•In national security, America must rebuild and reconfigure its military forces, develop a viable and sustainable approach to nuclear proliferation and terrorism and greatly strengthen its intelligence and diplomatic capabilities, their letter said.
"Most importantly, we must begin to restore our standing, influence and credibility in the world,” they said.
Boren said America's approval rating in the world is at its lowest level in history.
"Cooperating with the rest of the world is important to our economy and national security,” he said
Boren and Nunn were friends while serving in the U.S. Senate.
Boren, a Democrat, was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Nunn, also a Democrat, was chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Boren, former Oklahoma governor, resigned from the U.S. Senate in 1994 to become OU's president.
Boren and Nunn said the nation's political system is at the least, badly bent, and many think it is broken at a time when America must lead "boldly at home and abroad.”
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Bloomberg...some strange ideas, but he really has no political record to speak of on national issues. His major claim to fame is enormous wealth.
Robb...longtime member of the southern conservative wing of the Democratic party.
Bill Brock...Tennessee southern conservative Republican leader.
Jim Leach...Republican congressman from conservative, middle-America Iowa.
Gary Hart...Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate who would probably call himself a liberal. If he didn't I would.
Sam Nunn...amother of those southern Democrats with conservative to moderate credentials.
I disagree with all those who have tried to weaken the second amendment as strongly as I disagree with all those who have tried to weaken the first amendment, but in my book, Boren is a long way from being what anyone could honestly call a liberal. As a reporter who had some reason to follow his record as well as interview him, I always found him to be a master fence-straddler. So, I certainly can't count him as a conservative. Neither can I stretch my understanding of the word "liberal" to fit him.
That's why I find the association with Stipe so strange. Throughout his career, unless it had some adverse impact on his billfold or his power base, Stipe was consistently one of the most outspoken liberals in the state, fitting almost every possible meaning of the word.
As I continue to read you, I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from on the Supreme Court. All Supreme Court judges, by the very nature of their job are "constitutionalists". But, I notice you didn't claim the Bush appointees were "constructionists". In that, I think you are completely right. I also am beginning to infer that when you call someone an "activist", you are judging them to be pushing a viewpoint which you oppose. I say any judge who is trying to impose his own political viewpoint on interpreting the constitution is an "activist" whether that viewpoint is, to use some very hackneyed words, "liberal" or "conservative". The problem with those words is that they have become over-simplified code words which often fail entirely to completely describe any man. As far as I am concerned, despite what I have said about Gene Stipe, calling him a "liberal" utterly fails to describe him.
He has done a good job at OU but this disturbs when he openly wants to promote another radical leftist socialist(Bloomberg) who just recently dictated limitations on freedom by banning trans-fats and smoking in ones own home! I understand institutions of higher learning(oxymoron) are commonly rampant with professors and faculty that push their socialist agenda, but to use his position and suggest that the greatest electoral system the world has ever known isn't good enough might be cause for Boren to step down from his lofty position. He seems to be once again peering down the brim of his nose upon the masses in disgust because the good ole days aren't as easy as they used to be. Quite frankly, the less Washington does the better. By his apparent close relationship and fondness with such an outspoken radical leftist, the less Boren does politically, the better.
He has done a good job at OU but this disturbs when he openly wants to promote another radical leftist socialist(Bloomberg) who just recently dictated limitations on freedom by banning trans-fats and smoking in ones own home! I understand institutions of higher learning(oxymoron) are commonly rampant with professors and faculty that push their socialist agenda, but to use his position and suggest that the greatest electoral system the world has ever known isn't good enough might be cause for Boren to step down from his lofty position. He seems to be once again peering down the brim of his nose upon the masses in disgust because the good ole days aren't as easy as they used to be. Quite frankly, the less Washington does the better. By his apparent close relationship and fondness with such an outspoken radical leftist, the less Boren does politically, the better.
Rob, you are right on, Boren has an agenda.
His agenda: Put a Democrat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008. A 3rd Party run by Bloomberg - Boren would possibly do that.