Hardin's abuse of free speech leads to failures
Gentle reader:
In our last missive we highly recommended that Republicans quit suing each other. But there was a lawsuit that we had previously highlighted that we feel is warranted. So did the judge overseeing the case. Just yesterday in the Wagoner County case of Jenifer Stevens v. OKGOP National Committeewoman Karin Hardin, the judge refused Karin's Motion to Dismiss, and will allow the defamation case to go forward. Ms. Stevens claims in the case that Karin stated repeatedly that Jenifer had a criminal record in Norman, and continued to do so after attempts to correct her. By doing this, Jenifer was defamed by Karin. If you read the petition, it's pretty clear on its face that Karin is guilty. The judge seems to agree, making statements such as, "the statements were not substantially true," and that Karin's statements were "made in reckless disregard to the truth." The judge went further to say that the statements were "so reckless it would cause emotional distress to Plaintiff." The Order we are quoting from is not up on OSCN yet, but the docket can be found here, and it should be available on the site soon.
So what does
all of this mean? Well, the Seminole Chief tells us that this technically means that the case will proceed, and that Karin lost her Motion to Dismiss. The Chief also tells us that based on what the judge wrote in the order, Karin is toast and better think about trying to settle before summary judgment or trial. And it's going to have to be a pretty sizable settlement. Guess she should have used Jonathan Krems. She probably would have still lost, but she could have helped him pay his Oklahoma Ethics Commission fines when she paid her bill.
But the Karin Hardin news
doesn't stop there. Yes, the National Committeewoman, Karin Hardin, who is tasked with building the party and supporting our elected Republicans, issued a threat to our Republican elected officials in her latest email. Fortunately for Karin, this speech is constitutionally protected, or else she could have another suit on her hands. Why did she issue the threat? She wants six different bills released from committee and moved to the floor. The bills that are being blocked, along with our commentary on each, is listed below:
"A bill which would put in place commonsense regulations on data centers"
Karin does not explain what she means by commonsense, but the reality is that she wants them banned, presumably based on flat earth theories that remain unproven.
"One which would make certain products/medicines available without a prescription"
Only the FDA, not the state of Oklahoma, can make drugs available over the counter.
"A bill that would hold the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority accountable."
Everything that is new is old. Gary Richardson lives again through this proposal. We don't necessarily like the turnpike system, but proponents make a good argument that 40% of the funds paid into the turnpike system are covered by out-of-state drivers. Who will cover that bill when you shut down the turnpike system? Particularly since some want to eliminate the property tax in the state?
"A bill protecting parental rights and prohibit overreaching DHS from being able to take a child from the custodial parent."
This one goes back to the mom that wouldn't get her son the necessary treatment for a very curable form of Leukemia. The problem is not all of the facts are public on this one, and they shouldn't be because they involve a minor. We're conflicted on this one, we believe in parental rights, but not to the point of infringing on a child's life. We'd need more facts on this that just aren't available to anyone except DHS and the mother that was probably not caring for her kid.
"One which would protect our state from any foreign law...such as sharia law...from being able to take precedence over our state's constitution."
We wrote about this a few weeks ago. This was tried in 2012, passed, and then blocked by the 10th Circuit. No wonder this one is being blocked by the legislature.
"One which would prohibit consumption and possession of alcohol by members of the Legislature while performing official legislative duties."
The Baptist community is trying to make a comeback with this one. We are pretty much teetotalers in the Warrior Longhouse, but don't mind the responsible consumption of alcohol. As a Capuchin Monk famously said in 1902, "because, without beer, things do not seem to go as well." Do we care about the bill? No. Is it a hill to die on for Karin? We certainly hope not.
And that's the problem
with the entire list Karin is basing her threats and demands on. Each of these are niche issues that should not be the basis of a broad-based agenda. If this is the agenda of today's OKGOP, and we are going to threaten our elected officials over them, it's time to reassess what our party stands for. If we don't, the niche proposals will just make the party apparatus further irrelevant.
Perhaps this is why we keep hearing that the Tulsa Republican Club is preparing to go statewide. So there is a place for a more sensical agenda to have community.
Enjoy the rest of your week,
CW/CM/SC/WB