Monday, August 16, 2010




Our 12 noon luncheon for Wednesday, August 18th will be held at
Italiano’s restaurant, 4801 North Lincoln in OKC. Three Republican
Senate candidates have been invited this week to our interview
process. They are Mark Allen (SD 4) from the Spiro-Poteau area, Josh
Brecheen (SD 30) from the Durant area and Sharon Parker (SD 16) from
Norman. We will finish interviewing Senate candidates on August 25th
and then vote on September 1st as to which candidates to make a
contribution. We will then spend the following 2 Wednesdays in
September interviewing House candidates and our vote for their support
will come on October 6th. We will also have the individual who was
feeding documentation to the FBI regarding possible corruption
involving John Crawford speak for about 8 minutes at the front of our


* MONDAY EVENING - EDMOND AREA - OCPAC has endorsed John Doak for
Insurance Commissioner, I believe it will be one of the more difficult
races for Republican’s to win in November unless Mr. Doak is able to
raise sufficient funds for the general election and of course assuming
he wins the run-off election one week from Tuesday. In my next issue
of “Charlie’s Picks” (due out later this week) I will explain why it
is so important to elect a person like John Doak rather than John

I believe it was the Wednesday after the primary that Mr. Doak
attended our meeting to thank us for our endorsement. Our members and
friends raised almost $3,000 on the spot for Mr. Doak, none of that
was our PAC monies, just those folks attending who decided to step up
to the plate to make a difference. Many of the candidates for down
ticket state wide races have had difficulty raising money for this
year’s elections as so many people have been focused on the Governor,
Lt. Governor and Congressional races. As such I wanted to announce an
opportunity to attend a Reception for John Doak. It will be Monday
evening from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. at the home of Jim & Joy Harlin, 1501
Deason Drive in Edmond. RSVP is appreciated but not required, (405)
348-1147 or . Special Guest Speaker will be recently
re-elected Corporation Commissioner, Dana Murphy. If you cannot attend
but would like to donate to John Doak’s campaign, please visit for a printable donation form or to donate on

One more item, this past Friday the Oklahoman endorsed John Doak over
Crawford as I would expect, given their many past articles about
possible corruption when Crawford was in office several years ago. In
this race, the Oklahoman gets it right. However, should John Doak win
the Republican nomination, look for the Oklahoman to endorse the
Democrat Kim Holland in the general election in November.

You ask why? To appear to be non-partisan and rational, I believe the
Oklahoman must mix their endorsements rather than endorse all
Republicans or all Democrats. I believe they will endorse 2 Democrats,
Kim Holland and the current state Auditor being challenged by Gary
Jones. I believe they will endorse Republicans for all the other state
wide races. Time will tell if I am correct. In the mean time it is the
responsibility of the voters to do the work necessary to investigate
and support the best candidates for the office.

* TUESDAY EVENING - TULSA AREA - The Tulsa area Republican
Assembly will have their monthly meeting Tuesday evening with Dinner
at 6 and the speaker at 7:00 p.m. The location is the Golden Corral on
71st street and Mingo in Tulsa. The speaker will be Janet Barresi, the
Republican nominee for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Janet will talk about what she will do if elected. Questions will be
taken from the audience. I believe Janet is the best candidate the
Republicans have ever had running for this office and we really need
to support her. Those attending will be impressed with her grasp on
the office and her plans if elected.


In last week’s e-mail I suggested the attack on Calvey had begun and
was coming from the Oklahoman, Oklahoma’s largest and only state wide
newspaper (sold in every county). I suggested the motive for the
attack was because Kevin took a position against MAPS III, believing
people needed a tax cut during a recession. I also stated my struggle
with James Lankford’s position that he would not interject himself
into local matters as a candidate or elected official in Congress. I
also questioned his ability to remain independent since he was now
being supported by many of the central planners in OKC. About 3 hours
after the e-mail went out I received a call from James Lankford and we
had an excellent conversation.

He explained his position on local and federal issues as follows: He
said he has a passionate belief on SQ 744, the huge spending increase
for teachers but will not make his thoughts known as it is a state
issue and not a federal issue. On the other hand, he will publicly
support the state question to opt-out of Obamacare as that has federal
ramifications. If James holds true to his convictions on these kinds
of issues, I will respect him for such. However, when a person is
running for office, they are going to represent people and as such
people need to be able to trust them to have a consistent ideology,
sound judgment and integrity. Once that relationship of trust is
built, people often look to elected officials for their opinion on
issues, especially the controversial ones. That willingness to express
an educated opinion on issues, whether they be national, state, county
or city is leadership in my opinion. An unwillingness to do so is
lacking in my opinion. Of course people must leave room for an elected
official to be unknowledgeable, at least for a reasonable time
period, on some issues as the number of issues we face are a

As far as James’ ability to remain independent of the central
planners, who are now answering his calls, he assured me they also
don’t like his refusal to commit to local issues. Prior to the
primary, they were largely behind Mike Thompson and now that he may
become their Congressman, many of them are trying to build
relationships with him. He has been calling Thompson’s supporters, but
James also points out that Kevin has been calling the same people
asking for their support. Ultimately, it takes a person of character
to govern according to the rule of law and the ideology of our
founding fathers to produce good government rather than becoming a
puppet for special interests, wanting wealth re-distribution. James
has convinced me, he has the character to trust him to do so, but I
will say, voters should always watch elected officials closely to make
sure they don’t violate that trust. As Ronald Reagan said, “trust by

Now, for the Oklahoman’s treatment of Kevin Calvey. I think their
running a story about Kevin helping a vagrant walking in a rain storm
who told him about a body in a vacant building near Trosper Park was
out of place, the event happened months ago, it was irrelevant and an
attempt to raise concerns about Kevin’s character. I believe it was
yellow journalism (it was a news item, not on the editorial page) and
it stunk. The other articles raised questions about Calvey’s
contributions to his campaign, especially from an investment venture
in Russia. I was asked by several readers as to why I didn’t mention
that issue in my e-mail? I was silent because I needed to research the
issue. The following is what I found out:

Kevin’s brother led a group of investors in a capitol investment firm
in Russia which was very successful and made a huge amount of money.
Kevin was one of 4 attorneys who did legal work for the firm. In all
there were 30 service providers to this firm. One important fact he
told the Oklahoman’s reporters which didn’t make the story, was that
all 30 service providers were offered the same investment opportunity.
Kevin was not treated any differently than any of the other
professionals providing services to the new venture.

Before I continue, let me explain some different options companies
have to access professional help. Some simply hire professionals and
pay a salary. Others pay a smaller salary and provide some level of
ownership or investment in the company. In some cases, no salary is
paid and the hope for return on their time is a much larger return for
not taking a salary. The later was the choice that Kevin made and it
turned out very well for him as the venture made a very large amount
of money. One of the articles raised suspicion about a discrepancy as
to how much Kevin invested to get this return? He didn’t invest any
money, just his professional time, however, there were some fees
associated with becoming a part of the venture, kind of like a filing
fee. Kevin couldn’t remember if it was $10, $50 or perhaps a $100. It
wasn’t money put in as an investment, it was a fee to become a part of
the venture.

The FEC (federal election commission) allows a candidate to put an
unlimited amount of their personal money into their race. However,
they are very restrictive about how much others may put into a
campaign and if they catch a candidate laundering contributions as if
it were their own money, they could put them in prison. Also, the SEC
(securities and exchange commission) is becoming very aggressive
toward corporate leadership who might “raid” the profits for their
personal use and thus cheat the stockholders out of their just
dividends. However, the venture Kevin reaped profits from was not a
publicly traded company. Therefore, the investing partners can reap
any profits they want from such a venture.

Therefore, I believe the whole purpose of the article was to raise
doubts about Kevin, for the purpose of defeating him on August 24th.
On the Sunday, August 15th the editorial page in the Oklahoman
endorsed James Lankford, primarily because Kevin opposed Maps III. No
surprise here. Following are a couple of statements from their
endorsement. Speaking of Lankford they said: “He’s a solid
conservative but not a reactionary. He doesn’t substitute ideology for
intelligence.” (That is a fair criticism of many ideologues as we
sometime are so intent on the perfection of our ideology that we are
unreasonable when it comes to the steps it might take to transition
from a place in time to where we need to go. However, a person without
an ideology is like a life boat adrift without an anchor, like a
puppet dangling from the strings of various special interests.) The
Oklahoman went on to say, “He understands that most issues have
nuances and that taking a firm position has consequences.” (I believe
that was a warning to any future candidate or office holder for that
matter, that standing in the way of the special interests of the
Oklahoman and the OKC central planners can be your unraveling.)

The Oklahoman also said: “Last year, Calvey took a position on MAPS 3,
joining an anti-progress chorus that failed to defeat the initiative.
Calvey was on the wrong side of the issue and it was ill-advised for a
congressional candidate to take any stand on Maps 3.” (At that time
congressional candidates Jeff Cloud and Tom Cole came out in favor of
Maps 3. Can anyone show me a word of criticism in the Oklahoman about
their support for Maps 3?)

Not all that the central planners do turns out bad. However, my
problem is that in many cases they are quite willing to use taxpayers
dollars rather than their own money as they re-shape our community and
along the way serve themselves at the same time.

My opposition to MAPS 3 wasn’t based on a tax cut for the people as
much as other problems. A new convention center, the kayak course and
the senior wellness centers are businesses and should be in the
private sector, not government owned and competing against similar
businesses owned by people in the private sector. I don’t have so much
of a problem with the river improvements, the extension of hiking and
bike trails or the public park as they are public use venues. However,
I do believe the park, the wellness centers and especially the light
rail system will cost the city a large increase in maintenance costs
above any amount brought in from those venues. I also believe he state
fair board’s operations are hidden and unaccountable to the public.
Until proven otherwise, I believe all improvements to the fair grounds
should come from the revenues generated by that entity and not more
tax dollars.

Years ago, I was one of the biggest defenders of the Oklahoman,
believing they were conservative and fair on their editorial page as I
would see editorials published on both sides of an issue. On a
comparative basis, they are more conservative than say the Tulsa World
or most other large city newspapers, but I also believe they are not
as conservative as they used to be. Eight years ago, I was involved
with Tim Green’s race for Attorney General. The editorial page of the
Oklahoman was in Denise Bode’s camp and as such wrote a hard hitting
editorial against Tim Green. Tim responded with an op-ed piece which
the Oklahoman refused to print.

At that time I began to have a different perspective on the Oklahoman.
In addition, I believe the main purpose of a newspaper is to expose
corruption and good old boy deals and honor what is good. However,
once a newspaper or their ownership engages in other businesses (such
as the Bass Pro’s Stores or the OKC Thunder) they run the risk of
losing their objectivity and the paper may become a tool for their own
self interests rather than exposing anything untoward.

When the Oklahoman ran the article about Kevin’s investment and the
money he made of which he has now put into his campaign, the Oklahoma
had sent to them an editorial from one of the prominent men associated
with the venture. So far the Oklahoman has not printed that ob-ed
piece, but I have obtained it and have permission from the author. I
will print it in its entirety and exactly as it was sent to the

“Dear Editor:

Your recent article on Kevin Calvey’s work for, and investments in,
Baring Vostok, the company run by Kevin’s brother, Mike Calvey, left
out important details which paint the Calveys in an unfair light. I
wish your reporter would have called me, as Kevin suggested, as I
could have cleared up your misconceptions. Unfortunately, your
reporter never did.

I am a native Oklahoman and a former astronaut who commanded four
space missions, including the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission, and the
former Deputy Chief of Staff for the Air Force for research and
development. I also serve as an advisor to Baring Vostok, as have two
former US Ambassadors. We agreed to become advisors to Baring Vostok
because of the firm’s successful investment track record and Mike
Calvey’s impeccable reputation.

Kevin Calvey is also a man of impeccable integrity. After brief and
successful service in the State Legislature, at age 40, he left
everything to serve our country in Iraq. The Army recognized Kevin’s
achievements in Iraq by awarding him the prestigious Bronze Star

Before deploying to Iraq and since his return, Kevin did legal work
for his brother and Baring Vostok. As a legal service provider, Kevin
was entitled to a share in a limited partnership in one of Baring
Vostok’s investment funds. Thirty other service providers and
employees participated in the carried interest program on the same
terms, a fact which was told to your reporter, but which he failed to
mention. Carried interest programs for employees and service
providers are standard practice in the private equity industry, which
also went unmentioned. Further, the implication that funds from these
investments dominate the Calvey campaign is simply wrong. The vast
majority of Kevin Calvey’s congressional campaign funds come from over
2000 individual contributors, including myself.

For you to treat a decorated Iraq War veteran like Kevin Calvey as you
did in your article is beneath the dignity of your paper.”

Thomas P Stafford
Lieutenant General (USAF Retired)
Oklahoma City.

I have written a lot on this race and let me say, many members and
friends of OCPAC are supporting one or the other of these 2
candidates. Many people have had time to hear and get to know both of
these candidates and they will make their decision based on their own
efforts. I am convinced either of them are a better choice than the
voters had in the run-off for this seat 4 years ago.

However, the voting members of OCPAC have endorsed Kevin Calvey based
on the interview of the candidates and our knowing Kevin for many
years. Kevin made some mistakes during his time in office, but has
admitted such mistakes which takes a person of character to do so.

The real difference in the race is the experience of Kevin Calvey and
his aggressiveness to get out front on issues, such as filing a
lawsuit against the federal government regarding Obamacare and his
leadership in exposing the Center for American and Islamic
Relationships (CAIR) as little more than a front group for radical
Islam. He has also taken on the Oklahoma Bar Association in their
perceived attempts to change the code of judicial conduct to inhibit
conservative lawyers from sitting as judges. Kevin believed the
attempt by the OBA was to allow more homosexuals to sit as judges His
opposition to MAPS 3 was simply an example of leadership.

James Lankford is a man of integrity and has accomplished a lot in the
private sector. He is smart and I believe he is more of an ideologue
than the Oklahoma believes, at least I hope he is. The main difference
is that James is running from the standpoint of a citizen legislator,
but unproven at this time in the realm of government. Kevin is running
from the standpoint of proven leadership in the realm of government
and politics. Therefore, I would suggest making up your mind based on
these perspectives and not the BS (Blue Smoke) published in the
Oklahoman because they were mad at Kevin because he didn‘t support
their taxpayer funded pet project.

Charlie Meadows

No comments: