Liberal Arts degree from UCO.

Wow, when did Taco Bell make you get a degree?


while pursuing a Grad School degree, several years ago I believe

Were you trying to promote to shift leader?

The story of Steve Hunt… at The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2010/02/09/the-story-of-steve-hunt/)

Very Interesting(!);

YouTube - Sesame Street - Arte Johnson's lecture on Q and U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIfbCCtWr5I&feature=player_embedded)

video on Steve Hunt--he definitely won't get my vote!

I keep reading about this Taco Bell connection and Mr. Hunt...but what about the REAL connection between Mayor Cornett and Taco Bell? Remember his spokesmanship for Taco Bell's healthier menu items (in conjunction with the Mayor's "This City is Going on a Diet" and other health initiatives). If one Mayor can have a connection why can't another? LOL

Well, one was a spokesman because folks trust him and generally think he's awesome.

The other scooped mayonnaise-like substances into deep fried tortilla shells.

If you think the two positions on par with one another, you're more than entitled to your opinion I suppose. :tiphat:

Not sure why anyone would trust him given all of the spin, half-truths and in some cases out-right lies to come from the Mayor's direction the past few years. But, like you said, you are more than entitled to your opinion.

And no, I haven't always been anti-Cornett. Thought he did a good job as Councilman. He was one of the few that voted against the Bass Pro deal and was against the selling of the Naming Rights of the Arena. he said we needed to be promoting the City (with the name of the Arena) and not some corporation. He was correct back then and that is why I voted for him both times when he ran for mayor. But given his switch since his landslide re-election win, he has become just another tax-n-spend, say anything that you think the voters want to hear, politician. IMO

Be that as it may, I'd be much less thrilled about some retail clerk/grad school dropout/rabble rouser running my city. Too much opportunity for very public, very grand embarrassment. Not the sort of thing we need at the moment.

Aside from that, I've seen or heard that Hunt is a big fan of folks like Chomsky... he hasn't been so open about his philosophy, just all the stuff he's "against" for whatever reason. And what he's against? Stuff Chomsky would be against. And what does he want to do with that money? Stuff Chomsky would want to do with the money.

So if someone credible would step up to the plate, they might be worth a gander. This fella, however, is a deeply disturbed individual who has sent very good friends of mine ranting, raving and personally threatening emails. Voting for Hunt for Mayor would be a mistake.

You say we have a snake oil salesman in the job right now. Would you want to trade that for a certifiable loon?

-- and I know we're all supposed to be tolerant of mental illness, but when sanity is a baseline qualification for a job, I think discrimination with respect to this issue is more than justified.

mid: I appreciate your thoughts and this is the quandry I am faced with this election. Also, I wouldn't go quite as far as to characterize Cornett as a snake oil salesman. Cornett came down in my book when shortly after his landslide reelection he decided to run for Congress. He decided not to do the right thing and resign as Mayor (as Humphreys did when he decided to run for the Senate). Either he wanted to be Mayor or he didn't. Personally think that any elected office holder has made the most basic of campaign promises when elected. That they will serve for the entire term. To decide you want some other job that catches your eye and decide to publicly go after it without an abject apology to their constituents (for violating that trust), resignation from office (upon their replacement so their constituents are represented) and payment for any special election required to replace them (at their personal expense, no campaign funds). I feel this way about every elected official and it has come up since Mr. Cornett. When Denise Bode resigned from the Corp. Comm. she set into motion a couple of more elected officials that should have kept the jobs they were elected to do or resign. Jim Roth accepted the appointment by the Gov before the end of his term at the County. This opened up the seat so Council woman Willa Johnson to desert her constituents (and without representation for at least a couple of months). Ms. Johnson even stated that she was on the City Council just until something better came along. As someone who has voted for some of these people (and their reelection as well) I feel betrayed and I absolutely will not vote for them ever again.

Mr. Roth lost in his reelection bid and depending on the outcome of the County Jail situation, Ms. Johnson may be out the door as well. It seems highly improbable that Mr. Cornett could lose this election, but there is absolutely no way he will get my vote again.

Then might I suggest you not vote if these are the only two folks on the ballot? That is always an option.

As for Roth, it's no secret how that went down. Murphy ran a rural campaign, made sure the media kept reporting that Roth was gay, then won. The folks who voted for Murphy over Roth did so based upon homophobia, not who they thought should be overseeing the corporation commission. Everyone I know who has had dealings with Roth either at the County level or the Corp Corp has had nothing but good things to say about his professionalism and expertise -- except for the fact that towards the end of his career at the Corp Corp, he really seemed to be buying whatever it was that Chesepeake was selling at any given point in time.

As far as the Jail situation goes, I think we have a good group of leaders at the County level who have inherited an impossible problem. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be in their shoes. Either a new sales tax or a big 'ol assessment against property owners. Do they want to spark the anger of just homeowners? Or everyone in general? Classic Catch-22 situation. No wonder they've chosen to do nothing so far.

As the recpient of several unsolicited private messages from Mr. Hunt that showed poor moral character and a decided lack of judgement, I could not agree with Midtowner more. We would definitely put ourselves in the public eye nationally by electing him, but the light would be far, far from flattering. Abstain Larry. Oklahoma City deserves better.

mid: I appreciate your thoughts and this is the quandry I am faced with this election. Also, I wouldn't go quite as far as to characterize Cornett as a snake oil salesman. Cornett came down in my book when shortly after his landslide reelection he decided to run for Congress. He decided not to do the right thing and resign as Mayor (as Humphreys did when he decided to run for the Senate). Either he wanted to be Mayor or he didn't. Personally think that any elected office holder has made the most basic of campaign promises when elected. That they will serve for the entire term. To decide you want some other job that catches your eye and decide to publicly go after it without an abject apology to their constituents (for violating that trust), resignation from office (upon their replacement so their constituents are represented) and payment for any special election required to replace them (at their personal expense, no campaign funds). I feel this way about every elected official and it has come up since Mr. Cornett.

I really have no problem with a politicial who is one political seat running for another. It's no different than being in one job while interviewing for another. There are times someone who has just taken one job gets an opportunity for another job that doesn't always come available. In the real world, timing means everything. I see nothing in what he did that "violates" my trust in him. Politicians rarely resign their current political postions while running for another.

Like Cornett or dislike him for other reasons but this is really a tiny issue.

As the recpient of several unsolicited private messages from Mr. Hunt that showed poor moral character and a decided lack of judgement, I could not agree with Midtowner more. We would definitely put ourselves in the public eye nationally by electing him, but the light would be far, far from flattering. Abstain Larry. Oklahoma City deserves better.


Having been a Democrat all my life, I totally agee that Oklahoma City deserves better and I'll vote for Cornett an aggressive Rebublican whom I have the utmost respect. Oklahoma City will move forward with Mick Cornett.

In reference to Mr. Hunt, he's been there and he's done that; however, he still has a way to go before tackling the job as Mayor of Oklahoma City.

Steve Hunt apparently thinks that spending years being a complete douchebag to every one he encountered and trashing OKC every chance he got would never come back to bite him. Doesn't sound like someone who is very intelligent to me. Is that the type of thinker you want running our city?

Having been a Democrat all my life, I totally agee that Oklahoma City deserves better and I'll vote for Cornett an aggressive Rebublican whom I have the utmost respect. Oklahoma City will move forward with Mick Cornett.

In reference to Mr. Hunt, he's been there and he's done that; however, he still has a way to go before tackling the job as Mayor of Oklahoma City.

There have been many of you who have said before on this site that the mayor has no real power, its the city manager and his staff. The mayor is more of a figure head. Other posters words, not mine.

So if that be the case, why are we in such an uproar if the Mayor has a challenger. If what you guys have been saying is true, then why couldnt Mr Hunt or someone else be the OKC figure head instead of Mr. Cornett, who is nothing more than a sportscaster and a puppet for big business interests.
Yet, you guys think that he hung the moon. How in the world did he do that if he doesnt have any power.

Its a simple question, its either one way or the other. No shades of grey.

I am thinking that Mr. Hunt, may clean up just as good as the Mr. Cornett.
Lets dress him in some nice suits, get him a hair cut and go get him some nice white dental veneers, that will give him that award winning trust me smile. Then lets see how different these two really are.

Remember, the Mayor doesnt have any real power. Just one vote.

Would you rather have a stark raving loon as a figurehead or someone like Cornett who has a background in marketing and advertising?

It's an easy pick for me.

Then might I suggest you not vote if these are the only two folks on the ballot? That is always an option.

As for Roth, it's no secret how that went down. Murphy ran a rural campaign, made sure the media kept reporting that Roth was gay, then won....

Sorry but I don't buy the anti-gay vote as why he isn't in office. I voted for him and thought he did a good job as Co. Comm., probably would have voted for his re-election. It was no secret that Roth was gay (he even proudly appeared in the Gay pride parade and had his picture and positions featured in the gay newspaper).

Not voting is not an attractive option either but it may be what I am left with. I don't know at this point.

The County Jail situation is not a pleasant one but those commissioners knew of the problems before they got elected. They need to solve the problem. Think they would have had a much better chance of getting a sales tax approved if they hadn't dragged their feet on the issue and got it to the voters before the MAPS 3 vote. There were reports that said the cost was extremely high and to cut costs, they cut the number of beds by about 500. Now how does that solve anything since one of the repeated prob the feds have with it is overcrowding? You are going to spend 100s of millions to make the situation worse? They are still dragging their feet on the issue and have delayed the election vote.

I really have no problem with a politicial who is one political seat running for another. It's no different than being in one job while interviewing for another. There are times someone who has just taken one job gets an opportunity for another job that doesn't always come available. In the real world, timing means everything. I see nothing in what he did that "violates" my trust in him. Politicians rarely resign their current political postions while running for another.

Like Cornett or dislike him for other reasons but this is really a tiny issue.

There is a difference, rarely when someone is looking for another job do they announce to their employer they are doing so (unless if it is some sort of leverage to get a raise in order to stay). We see it differently and that is fine, but as I said it is one of the most fundamental promises that a candidate makes. That he is going to serve the entire term.

And Cornett has given plenty of reasons to not trust him. Like I said, for me the distrust began with this very fundamental issue. Didn't always feel that way about him, his actions changed all that.

There is a difference, rarely when someone is looking for another job do they announce to their employer they are doing so (unless if it is some sort of leverage to get a raise in order to stay). We see it differently and that is fine, but as I said it is one of the most fundamental promises that a candidate makes. That he is going to serve the entire term.

And Cornett has given plenty of reasons to not trust him. Like I said, for me the distrust began with this very fundamental issue. Didn't always feel that way about him, his actions changed all that.

I disagree, that's the difference between a regular job and political office. You can't hide it. As I said, he didn't do anything differently than any other candidate running for political office. Did Obama resign as Senator when he ran for President? Did McCain? Did Bill Clinton? Did Hillary? Did Al Gore? Did Ronald Reagan? Holding office while running for another is a non issue.

Again, if you don't like him for his decisions as mayor or things he says, thats a different thing.

I disagree, that's the difference between a regular job and political office. You can't hide it. As I said, he didn't do anything differently than any other candidate running for political office. Did Obama resign as Senator when he ran for President? Did McCain? Did Bill Clinton? Did Hillary? Did Al Gore? Did Ronald Reagan? Holding office while running for another is a non issue.

Again, if you don't like him for his decisions as mayor or things he says, thats a different thing.

I agree completely. Everyone of the people you mentioned should have resigned their current office when they announced they wanted a different position (if it meant they were not going to be able to serve their complete term). Especially vexing are those who are running for multiple offices at the same time (reelection as Senator and Vice-President). As I have tried to stress, this is not an issue unique to Cornett (I voted for the man twice). Nor Roth (voted for him too). But it was the turning point for me and Mr. Cornett. I thought he did a great job as councilman (unfortunately he didn't represent my ward) and thought he did a good job as Mayor. It has been his record since then that have furthered my opposition.

My question for you is: if they weren't telling you the truth when they were running for office and got your vote the 1st time, why would you trust any other promise they made? If they couldn't keep their word in their current office, what is going to keep them on the job for the new one they are running for?

Being an elected office holder is essentially a contract position. There is a defined length of that contract and shouldn't be broken except for the most extreme of conditions. From the employer's side (voter) they are removed or retained in the next election cycle or if is something illegal going on that would force their removal from office). On the employee's side (office holder) they should only be allowed not to fulfill the terms of the contract if there is an extreme event like death or significant illness within the immediate family (such as personal health issues or being the caregiver of a spouse etc). Right now there is a State Senator that for personal health reasons was absent most of last session and is expected to be out most of this session. The man needs to resign his position (in the mean time, his constituents aren't being represented at the Capitol). Just because there is a better paying job (private or public sector) doesn't qualify as being sufficient reason to void the contract (not without severe financial penalties).

I have a theory. Based on the complete lack of promotion I've seen from the Hunt for Mayor camp, I think this might be another of Steve's many hoaxes. Sneaking into SuperBowls, bedeviling governor press conferences, looking like a total wack-job standing behind tv news folk doing live shots... isn't running for mayor the biggest hoax yet?

http://i45.tinypic.com/2jbkyn5.jpg

As if you needed more reason to vote next Tuesday:

www.uscm2010.com (http://www.uscm2010.com)

CaptainCouch,

Actually the election is quite crucial and could be a close race. Notice that you haven't seen Mick doing ANY campaigning. These type of elections already have a very small turnout. That coupled with electronic media, if Steve Hunt has some fanatical support base like a union or something, he can send out emails/texts/twitters/facebook and a few hundred people can decide an election such as this. Mick thinks it's an easy race, and it probably will be, but I know it has a lot of political insiders downtown worried because he's not campaigning. The last thing we'd need is some guy like Hunt representing our City for say the U.S. Conference of Mayors or the State of the Union address in DC.

Right, well that's what I'm saying. The mayors' meeting would have to be relocated if Cornett didn't win, amongst many other awful things that would occur.

Mick Cornett and Steve Hunt, head to head | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5689/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Mick Cornett and Steve Hunt, head to head | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5689/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Here is my favorite part:


Who are your personal heroes?
Hunt: Raphael Lemkin, Robert McChesney, Dean Baker, Amy Goodman, Greg LeRoy, Naomi Klein.

Would you rather have a stark raving loon as a figurehead or someone like Cornett who has a background in marketing and advertising?

It's an easy pick for me.

As someone in the legal profession, what do you think of a Mayor who apparently denied the Constitutional right to free speech of anyone wanting to speak about the upcoming vote (for or against) during the Public Remarks portion of a Council meeting? I saw Mr. Cornett do this in one of the meetings leading up to the MAPS 3 vote.

As someone in the legal profession, what do you think of a Mayor who apparently denied the Constitutional right to free speech of anyone wanting to speak about the upcoming vote (for or against) during the Public Remarks portion of a Council meeting? I saw Mr. Cornett do this in one of the meetings leading up to the MAPS 3 vote.

He had someone thrown into jail for speaking their mind? Really? Why haven't I heard of this?

He had someone thrown into jail for speaking their mind? Really? Why haven't I heard of this?Where did you hear that he had someone thrown into jail to begin with?

You might not like Mayor Cornett but I fail to see how Hunt is a viable alternative.

Type in any of Hunt's "heroes" names into google ,then add one of the following words - marxist, socialist, revolutionary, anarchist, anti-capitalist, far left radical, participatory econimics, etc, etc.

Interesting reading if your into far left anti-American radical politics.

Better yet, google any of his fellow bloggers on this sight.

Z Space Steve Hunt (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stevehunt)

As someone in the legal profession, what do you think of a Mayor who apparently denied the Constitutional right to free speech of anyone wanting to speak about the upcoming vote (for or against) during the Public Remarks portion of a Council meeting? I saw Mr. Cornett do this in one of the meetings leading up to the MAPS 3 vote.

Nobody was thrown in jail, but there were people that were denied the opportunity to speak at that city council meeting. I was there and witnessed it, first hand.

I have seen a Council agenda, and it is written right there in black and white - it says you can't speak at the meeting on issues currently up for election. That's what campaigns are for, not Council meetings. It's not unconstitutional if you muzzle both sides.

As someone in the legal profession, what do you think of a Mayor who apparently denied the Constitutional right to free speech of anyone wanting to speak about the upcoming vote (for or against) during the Public Remarks portion of a Council meeting? I saw Mr. Cornett do this in one of the meetings leading up to the MAPS 3 vote.

The First Amendment is not an unlimited grant of power to speak about anything, anytime, anyplace. It pertains only to public forums and makes sure that any government censorship of speech is viewpoint-neutral (and other things).

In this case, the City Council is not a public forum. The censorship pertained to everything related to MAPS III and thus was viewpoint neutral. No violation, no case.

Type in any of Hunt's "heroes" names into google ,then add one of the following words - marxist, socialist, revolutionary, anarchist, anti-capitalist, far left radical, participatory econimics, etc, etc.

Interesting reading if your into far left anti-American radical politics.

Better yet, google any of his fellow bloggers on this sight.

Z Space Steve Hunt (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stevehunt)

Thank you, Fire121 for recognizing what Hunt really is: a radical socialist. The fire department and city workers that are rallying behind him are the same people he would be denigrating and pranking before Maps 3. He is using their shared opposition to Maps 3 to garner their support in the mayoral election, while trying to not discuss his radical political beliefs with the public.

I hope that OKCsmokeandfire and the other hardworking fire department staff and supporters that have joined our dialog on OKCTalk will take a hard look at Hunt's own writings and see what they are truly supporting. I think they will be surprised and disappointed.


Abstain Larry. Oklahoma City deserves better.

Yes, Oklahoma City deserves much better.

I hope that OKCsmokeandfire and the other hardworking fire department staff and supporters that have joined our dialog on OKCTalk will take a hard look at Hunt's own writings and see what they are truly supporting. I think they will be surprised and disappointed.

I'm not sure where the notion that the firefighters are supporting this guy is coming from. We have not been asked to support or not support either of the candidates. The firefighters that I have talked to almost all have decided to abstain from voting for either one.

Since 75 percent of firefighters don't live in Oklahoma City, abstaining from voting won't be that difficult.

(I'm not trying to be flip, just stating the obvious that the "firefighter vote" is not exactly a major factor in City elections - the union only comes into play if it spends money on a campaign, which does not seem to be the case in this election either way.)

I'm not sure where the notion that the firefighters are supporting this guy is coming from. We have not been asked to support or not support either of the candidates. The firefighters that I have talked to almost all have decided to abstain from voting for either one.

I am abstaining from voting on this one. Lets agree on this and move on.

The First Amendment is not an unlimited grant of power to speak about anything, anytime, anyplace. It pertains only to public forums and makes sure that any government censorship of speech is viewpoint-neutral (and other things).

In this case, the City Council is not a public forum. The censorship pertained to everything related to MAPS III and thus was viewpoint neutral. No violation, no case.

I agree free speech isn't an absolute right but we aren't talking about yelling fire in a crowded theater here. I contend it was a public forum (was during the citizen portion of the meeting). The rules were followed (signing up in advance etc). Not an uncontrolled "town hall" type of meeting either.

Cant help but feel that since Mr. Hunt had signed up in advance, Mr Cornett saw it and knowing what was to come, decided to shut him down. Seems iffy at best "as long as both sides are censored" that it is justified. May not have been anyone on the other side anyway. If this is legal to do, why wasn't it done during the Ford tax campaign Council meetings? I didn't see any censoring during those?

Can someone post from the agenda where it says one cant "advocate" either way on an upcoming election?

I agree free speech isn't an absolute right but we aren't talking about yelling fire in a crowded theater here. I contend it was a public forum (was during the citizen portion of the meeting). The rules were followed (signing up in advance etc). Not an uncontrolled "town hall" type of meeting either.

You can contend whatever you want to contend. If you want to address, for example, the Oklahoma legislature, you have to abide by the rules of the chamber. Once you take that podium, there are plenty of things you can do to get that Sergeant at Arms (or really the OHP) to swoop in and remove you. As I understand it, the rules at the time Hunt was stopped from speaking said that you couldn't comment either way on issues which were going to be on the ballot, that included MAPS.


Cant help but feel that since Mr. Hunt had signed up in advance, Mr Cornett saw it and knowing what was to come, decided to shut him down.

I think you overestimate the regard our Hon. Mayor has for neo-liberal Marxists who show up to rant at the city council. These sort of folks come to every city council meeting in the country in big and small towns and they are generally tolerated and ignored. If Hunt or anyone else thinks his tirades are thought of any differently (well, they may be different now since he's a candidate for office), then they're seriously overestimating Hunt's impact on the Council's psyche.


Seems iffy at best "as long as both sides are censored" that it is justified. May not have been anyone on the other side anyway. If this is legal to do, why wasn't it done during the Ford tax campaign Council meetings? I didn't see any censoring during those?

The rules can be changed. I don't know what the rules were then. So long as the rules are viewpoint neutral, however, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are hunky dory.


Can someone post from the agenda where it says one cant "advocate" either way on an upcoming election?

I would think that the rules would be posted somewhere other than the agenda. There's no requirement that I know of for such a public posting. At any rate, if you browse around OKC.GOV, you might get lucky.

I agree free speech isn't an absolute right but we aren't talking about yelling fire in a crowded theater here. I contend it was a public forum (was during the citizen portion of the meeting). The rules were followed (signing up in advance etc). Not an uncontrolled "town hall" type of meeting either.

Cant help but feel that since Mr. Hunt had signed up in advance, Mr Cornett saw it and knowing what was to come, decided to shut him down. Seems iffy at best "as long as both sides are censored" that it is justified. May not have been anyone on the other side anyway. If this is legal to do, why wasn't it done during the Ford tax campaign Council meetings? I didn't see any censoring during those?

Can someone post from the agenda where it says one cant "advocate" either way on an upcoming election?

You couldn't be more wrong, this has been policy for several years.

You couldn't be more wrong, this has been policy for several years.

It may well be "policy", but the question is why wasn't it enforced during the Council meetings leading up to the Ford vote? Mr Hunt and Wanda Jo weren't censored then from the meetings I saw.

Mid. I appreciate you. I don't know if I tell you that enough.

I keep hearing the police and fire are behind Hunt, but not one I have spoken with knows where that is coming from. Probably the same source that thinks this will actually be a competition.

I give Hunt credit for having huge cahones. But he isn't any different than the contenders on American Idol who know they can't sing. He just wants his 15 minutes of fame and negative attention is better than none at all. His stance is for the exact opposite of Mick's. That's what his campaign slogan should read, it doesn't matter what it is...if Mick likes it, Hunt hates it. He keeps saying he wants OKC to stand out and stop being compared to other cities...then follows that up with a campaign to get some community internet like Dallas has. So he only wants to compare things HE wants. Not what is good for the city, but what he personally wants. He's all over the place.

I think I will run for Mayor next year because I think everyone should have a slingbox.

It may well be "policy", but the question is why wasn't it enforced during the Council meetings leading up to the Ford vote? Mr Hunt and Wanda Jo weren't censored then from the meetings I saw.

The rules are printed in the minutes, and I think whomever is leading the Council Meeting usually reiterates them verbally each time. Here you go (emphasis is mine):


Citizens may address the Council during public hearings on any matter, such as dilapidated housing, planning, and zoning decisions. Citizens may also address the Council on individual concerns at the end of the agenda
when the Mayor announces "Citizens to be Heard." Citizens will not be allowed to campaign on any political issue during the Council meeting. Please fill out a "Request to be Heard" form located outside the Chambers. Please return this form to the Council Office at the north end of the hall. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO 3 MINUTES.
Citizens who wish to be listed on the agenda for comments to Council may call the City Clerk's Office at 297-2397 before 4 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the next Council meeting.

It is not censorship - just rules in place to maintain order and timeliness. Hunt has frequently and vigorously exercised his right to free speech at Council Meetings, as anyone who has the displeasure to be in attendance or watch the videos knows all too well.

Mid. I appreciate you. I don't know if I tell you that enough.

I keep hearing the police and fire are behind Hunt, but not one I have spoken with knows where that is coming from. Probably the same source that thinks this will actually be a competition.

I give Hunt credit for having huge cahones. But he isn't any different than the contenders on American Idol who know they can't sing. He just wants his 15 minutes of fame and negative attention is better than none at all. His stance is for the exact opposite of Mick's. That's what his campaign slogan should read, it doesn't matter what it is...if Mick likes it, Hunt hates it. He keeps saying he wants OKC to stand out and stop being compared to other cities...then follows that up with a campaign to get some community internet like Dallas has. So he only wants to compare things HE wants. Not what is good for the city, but what he personally wants. He's all over the place.

I think I will run for Mayor next year because I think everyone should have a slingbox.

Fire and Police are not endorsing a candidate for the Mayors race. The rumor that F and P are supporting Hunt are completely false. Most of us will not be voting period. Hopefully that clears that up.

Go ahead and run for the next Mayors race. Roll the dice and see what happens. If you would have signed up for this Mayors race you may have stood a good chance of pulling off the upset.

Fire and Police are not endorsing a candidate for the Mayors race. The rumor that F and P are supporting Hunt are completely false. Most of us will not be voting period. Hopefully that clears that up.

No, I'm sure the organizations are not endorsing him. But people within the fire & police communities are supporting him. I just scanned through the 'Hunt for Mayor' facebook page and counted over two dozen current fire and police department employees. And those are just the obvious ones that listed fire/police as their occupation, or appear in uniform in their photo. It is logical to assume that there are many more not on facebook.

What shocked me even more than that was to see how many of his supporters were also fans of LifeChurchTV, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, conservative republican or evangelical Christian organizations. In other words, people who align themselves with all the things Hunt hates. Just confirms to me that people are voting against Maps/Cornett - and have not taken the time to truly understand who the person they have chosen to support.

Since 75 percent of firefighters don't live in Oklahoma City, abstaining from voting won't be that difficult.

(I'm not trying to be flip, just stating the obvious that the "firefighter vote" is not exactly a major factor in City elections - the union only comes into play if it spends money on a campaign, which does not seem to be the case in this election either way.)

Please provide proof that 75% of all Oklahoma City Firefighters live outside the city limits.

Just curious.

It may well be "policy", but the question is why wasn't it enforced during the Council meetings leading up to the Ford vote? Mr Hunt and Wanda Jo weren't censored then from the meetings I saw.

Perhaps it was an experiment.
Perhaps it was laziness.
Perhaps it was a carefully crafted ploy.
Perhaps both sides were allowed to speak at the time of the Ford tax, and only one side bothered to show up.

Irrespective of whether it was one of these explanations, or none of these explanations, that a policy wasn't enforced in one instance (involving a separate election cycle) doesn't mean the policy can never be enforced again afterwards.

So long as it was applied evenly re MAPs3 and it sounds like it was, it wasn't abusive.

Please provide proof that 75% of all Oklahoma City Firefighters live outside the city limits.

Just curious.

I recall reading a similar stat somewhere along the way but can't locate it...if I run across it, will post