http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/swinton_gazette_march29s.jpg

Huh????? How does "Charlie's Opponent" want to cripple MAPS?? This Swinton campaign is the most bizarre city council campaign thing I have ever seen. Even better question, how has he made this "clear??"

Does the website work for anyone? Has it ever? Maybe it has people in Europe blocked or something but it has never worked for me.

Swinton's website has always worked fine for me: http://swintonforcouncil.com/ but don't expect to see much while visiting. It is, shall we say, Spartan, Spartan.

It never works for me. Maybe it's a browser thing, but I only have Firefox and Safari, and it works in neither for me..

Here are the candidate's ads in the March 29 Gazette ... click on ads for larger views.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadidad_gazette_march29s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadidad_gazette_march29.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/swinton_gazette_march29s.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/swinton_gazette_march29.jpg)

At least we know what Shadid is for.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/swinton_gazette_march29s.jpg

Huh????? How does "Charlie's Opponent" want to cripple MAPS?? This Swinton campaign is the most bizarre city council campaign thing I have ever seen. Even better question, how has he made this "clear??"

Does the website work for anyone? Has it ever? Maybe it has people in Europe blocked or something but it has never worked for me.

Lies.

Dirty rotten lies.

If Swinton can lie his way into office when there's such a well-qualified candidate on the other side of the ticket, something will be wrong. Let's hope that the voters are savvy enough to spot shenanigans. There ought to be an extremely low turnout, which to my mind, would favor Shadid.

Money wins

Candidates raising the most money either won the Oklahoma City Council primary or made the runoff.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11205-money-wins.html

Normally, I would agree with you. But that is in part because there has not really been a serious, sane choice with a serious, communicative campaign.

Plus, runoff voters are usually "super educated" versus normal elections. An educated voter would probably vote for Shadid although I find it remarkable how many "friends" Swinton seems to have in this town. I mean, some of his "friends" are friends of mine and they seem to be willing to vote for Charlie irregardless of what negative messages go out or how incorrect they are. He seems to be a nice man with historic ties and that is all that matters to some people.

With that said, the Momentum campaign has completely turned off progressive voters such as myself. Attacking, sane stable people who have positive motives for running is going way too far. Particularly, a candidate that is remarkably similar to the representation that we currently have, Sam Bowman. He is a difficult man to replace and one who has left a legacy of direct support for our neighborhoods and our citizens.

For me personally, Swinton seemed to be "ok" until he started messaging that Shadid is out to "cripple MAPS." If were to come from Momentum, I wouldn't have cared. I wouldn't have been surprised. But it is Swinton's personal campaign that is directly propagating what appears to be a complete lie. I have no respect for someone who would authorize doing that and ignores his opponents direct and repetitious personal, verbal contradiction at numerous public events and forums.

And I would also say, I greatly appreciate the recent balanced coverage that the Oklahoman and Gazette have provided to this race. It instills some degree of confidence in our local news institutions.

I hope these Swinton and Shadid ads appear opposite of each other, so that nobody is actually buying the Swinton crap.

I hope these Swinton and Shadid ads appear opposite of each other, so that nobody is actually buying the Swinton crap.
I've just done that at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/ward-2-why-im-for-shadid.html and I've added this modified version ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/swinton_gazette_march29_2.jpg

Nick has posted his opinion in a fine blog piece here: http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-your-vote-worth-409000.html

Here is a 30 second spot, apparently intended for television:

v/mWK6UaCSM_w?version=3"

I've just done that at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/ward-2-why-im-for-shadid.html and I've added this modified version ...

Right, of course...I just mean in the Gazette and Oklahoman print, where people are actually being affected by these ad spots. I've always had the hunch people go to blogs in the first place because they agree with that the blogger usually says in the first place...I may be wrong though.

What is the word for that, a sound tunnel? I think that's it. (And thanks for the plug, of course.)

It never works for me. Maybe it's a browser thing, but I only have Firefox and Safari, and it works in neither for me..

What versions are you using?

I am usually on an older Mac (10.4.11) running Safari (4.1) and Seamonkey (1.1.7, a Firefox product) on Swintons site comes up ok. Seems if it runs in older versions, it should run in more current ones but I know ones that work ok at work, don't at home etc.

Ok, Shadid has me back (despite Rice's endorsement). Hope he can/will do what he said in the ad.


Build MAPS 3 exactly as promised, on budget and on time, with maximum public deliberation and transparency.

But he is just one voice among the nine and we were told the same things when Humphreys ran for Mayor (and didn't turn out to be true).

God, Swinton seems like such a creep. He hasn't given voters a single identifiable reason to vote for him. He stands for nothing apparently and is willing to say anything to get elected. Yikes. I cannot imagine the level of disappointment I would feel with this city if he is somehow able to get elected. This should be an obvious choice. What a crappy and insulting campaign Swinton has run, and on the other side, what a dignified and brilliant campaign Shadid has run! The contrast couldn't be more obvious.

On another note, I'm not currently a Chamber member by dint of my new profession, but if I were, I would be sending them my cancelation notice. I was fine with them working hard for MAPS 3 (and I volunteered with that effort), and I was fine with them working to get the tea-bagging bomb throwers from bringing the cult of Windsor Hills to the Council, but the trashing of Shadid is -- as Urban Pioneer has pointed out -- unconscionably misdirected. I have a beef with the Chamber and I think they should rethink their participation in activities like this in the future.

Swinton's Web site loads in my IE 8, but he has only three postings on 12/16, 2/1 & 2/16? Is that all he has to say?

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsas.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsa.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsbs.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsb.jpg)

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

Yes, it's out - I got it yesterday. Good piece to finish up with. It pretty much speaks for itself. I think Ed's going to win this one.

It's nice to see that Ed didn't bring a ukulele to a gun fight! Good for him. Punching right where it hurts.

Oh wow. That is devastating. What a sucker punch... go Shadid!

I completely forgot about that whole Carroll Fisher thing, and had no idea that Swinton was behind that. Wow.

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsas.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsa.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsbs.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsb.jpg)

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not a Swinton supporter (voted for Shadid in the primary). And certainly not a Fisher supporter by any means. But it would appear that it was Swinton's testimony that helped get Fisher removed from office. From the article the flier references (the middle bolded part is the incomplete quote on the flier):

Ward 2 in Oklahoma City has six council candidates (Oklahoman, 2/23/11)


Background checks

The Oklahoman ran tax, bankruptcy, criminal and civil background checks on all 13 candidates vying for four city council seats.

After eliminating some with traffic infractions and other minor matters, the checks revealed a few problems worth asking about.
...
In May 2004, Swinton testified in front of a state Legislative commission investigating Carroll Fisher, the former state insurance commissioner convicted of bribery in 2009. Swinton said BancFirst was approached by Fisher's representative and asked to buy items for Fisher's office.

Swinton said the bank purchased Fisher an ice machine for $3,648 after he was told the Central Services Department signed off on the purchase.

“I testified because I was the one that coordinated it for the bank,” he said, adding that neither he nor the bank were accused of doing anything wrong. “We would not have given it if they had not given us a letter from central services saying it was OK.”

Swinton also was scrutinized for an e-mail announcing his candidacy that was sent by his wife, Oklahoma County District Judge Barbara Swinton, from her state courts network e-mail.

“There was a screw up with the computer at the very first. She reimbursed the system for it and she talked to the chief justice the instant we discovered it. It's just a regrettable error. She thought she was sending it out on a private deal and it wasn't.”

complete article here: http://www.newsok.com/ward-2-in-oklahoma-city-has-six-council-candidates/article/3543101?custom_click#

Larry, I'll get back to your comments shortly. But first, here's a story that ran on KWTV this evening concerning the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum:

/v/TRvmKgNXk5E?version=3

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not a Swinton supporter (voted for Shadid in the primary). And certainly not a Fisher supporter by any means. But it would appear that it was Swinton's testimony that helped get Fisher removed from office. From the article the flier references (the middle bolded part is the incomplete quote on the flier):]

So Swinton would be an unindicted co-conspirator and that's a good thing?

So Swinton would be an unindicted co-conspirator and that's a good thing?

I mean, really, we wouldn't have broken into the Watergate if they hadn't signed-off on the deal at the White House. Or some such thing.

So, Swinton thought it was normal business practice to buy an elected official a $4,000 item for his office? Just as long as "Central Services signed-off on it." ?????

I agree, Midtowner, that's exactly what it sounds like.

Folks, like I said I am not defending Swinton, just that there is more to it than Shadid's flier shows. But in Shadid's defense, while they didn't include the complete line from the article, they did include the "..." elipsess(sp) and sited the source. It is a flier and not an article or a term paper where they can always give the complete story. It is indeed "normal business practice" for businesses to make gifts to the State. Believe Gov. Henry politely declined the "gift" and had the items returned. Think Fisher crossed the line when he solicited the donations (IIRC). As long as someone somewhere says it is ok (agency, legal council etc), they think that gives them carte blanche(sp) to go ahead and do it. Not unlike the Mayor and his apparent conflict of interest being a VP for a firm that does significant business with the City. He doesn't see a problem with it, because he asked the City's legal council for advise and they said, "not a problem". My question is, if you have to ask if something is right/wrong, that is a good indicator right there that you already think it is (or may just be a matter of conflicting laws).

I don't think anyone is saying Swinton should go to jail. I think, rather, the context of this flier is the perfect closer to this brilliantly run campaign. Virtually everything about Swinton is shady and has the whiff of corruption, or at least, a style of governing that OKC needs to move beyond.

As an amateur wordsmith, I can only dream of coming up with a tagline as good as that ad, and how it ties a bow (noose) around OKC Momentum, to whit:

"The quickest way to stop Oklahoma City's Momentum is to return to the days of cronyism, bribery and payback." Really, that is the type of governing a guy who has secret donors with secret interests who refuses to even tell voters what he would do in office is likely to propagate.

Watch and learn: this is how a local campaign should be run. Genius. Doesn't mean they'll win of course, but Shadid has played everything masterfully.

I mean, really, we wouldn't have broken into the Watergate if they hadn't signed-off on the deal at the White House. Or some such thing.

So, Swinton thought it was normal business practice to buy an elected official a $4,000 item for his office? Just as long as "Central Services signed-off on it." ?????

I agree, Midtowner, that's exactly what it sounds like.
Larry, this reply is really for you ... I said that I'd get back to it.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying, Larry, so let me just say what I understand, and then you can critique my remarks:


Swinton, of BankFirst, is approached by Carroll Fisher, insurance commissioner, at some unidentified time, and was asked to buy items for Fisher's office.
Swinton took Fisher's request back to BankFirst. Doubtless that request was processed through BankFirst's chain of command and that process resulted in it's Central Services Department signing off on a $3,643 ice machine for Fisher's office -- which it would doubtless not have done without the blessing, and probably instruction, of those higher in the chain of command than what the "Services Department" was.
The ice machine was delivered by BankFirst to Fisher.
Later, BankFirst was favored by a $4 million deposit by the insurance commission.
Swinton, and BankFirst, were not charged as culpable since BankFirst's Central Services Department had "signed off on the purchase" (which is perhaps the very most curious statement in the Oklahoman article).
In the matter, Swinton was called as witness because "I was the one who coordinated it for the bank."

As I understand it, that is the chain of events. Without me further elaborating, are you not simply able to agree that the above sequence does not pass the smell test as to what is or should be OK? But, if you really need more elaboration on these items, say so and I'll be glad to give it a stab.

You know, I don't know what has changed, but the Oklahoman has been doing a great job covering this race. Not as good as the Gazette -- and certainly not Doug's blog -- but a good job nonetheless. I regret slagging the paper in an earlier thread. I would hope the change in coverage is a reflection of just how good Shadid is. The OK is at a loss when it comes to trashing this guy. Or perhaps they feel the wind shifting in his direction. Who knows?

Larry, this reply is really for you ... I said that I'd get back to it.

...As I understand it, that is the chain of events. Without me further elaborating, are you not simply able to agree that the above sequence does not pass the smell test as to what is or should be OK? But, if you really need more elaboration on these items, say so and I'll be glad to give it a stab.

I agree Doug. Absolutely. Completely. Without reservation or disclaimer. Apparently I wasn't clear and I tried to clarify but something kept getting lost in the translation.

Now I will throw this one out there to everyone...

1) the Momentum folks are the ones behind and endorsing Swinton.

2) These same folks are the ones that were behind the other Council race winners that most here seemed to be in favor.

3) The question is, don't you think that those other Council Members are going to be subjected to the same things that Shadid says Swinton will be? The whole, beholden to special interests thing?

To be consistent, seems if you are against the Momentum group and what they are pushing, you would have run screaming away from their candidate picks in the other races too? Am I the only one that sees this? Anyone want to clarify?

By the way, even the Oklahoman editorial writer(s) says Shadid is a good candidate (but they are still throwing their support/endorsement to Swinton) in Friday's Oklahoman.

Larry, I would take "beholden to special Chamber interests" any day of the week over the Brian Walters Show. Also, consider the long history of Meg Salyer and Pat Ryan on the council. Those guys are veterans of the council. Especially Meg, is not about to be a pawn for some bigger interests. Furthermore, they won their election by a landslide, nearly 80-20 in one case I believe. That gives them political capital to do whatever they want. I'm also not sure Pat Ryan is going to go for another term after this one, he's been on for so long..I'd expect him to retire the next time his seat comes up.

The chamber did a good job of giving the Tea Party a devastating defeat that can hopefully curtail their influence in other elections in Central Oklahoma as well. Furthermore, this is different because Meg Salyer is a big liberal. She is more like Shadid, in the causes she advocates. And yeah, Swinton has always been a Democrat, too. The reason I say this is different is because Shadid and Swinton are different in the causes they have chosen to advocate. Swinton has advocated nothing and ran a negative campaign that leaves us to highly doubt his motives. Shadid has ran a good campaign, advocated for a great set of issues, and offered hope for the future, in spite of only being 1/8th of a mere city council if he is elected.

I'll admit to laughing at those mailers when Brian Walters was the target. That makes me guilty. I also didn't mind them going after the Tea Party folks, because their presence on the council could have been devastating to the city. So, you could say I'm being hypocritical, and you may be right, but what really hacks me off is their double barreled assault on Shadid is out of bounds, because the guy is going to be a great council member for his ward and an outstanding neighborhood advocate, like his predecessor.

I agree Doug. Absolutely. Completely. Without reservation or disclaimer. Apparently I wasn't clear and I tried to clarify but something kept getting lost in the translation.

Now I will throw this one out there to everyone...

1) the Momentum folks are the ones behind and endorsing Swinton.

2) These same folks are the ones that were behind the other Council race winners that most here seemed to be in favor.

3) The question is, don't you think that those other Council Members are going to be subjected to the same things that Shadid says Swinton will be? The whole, beholden to special interests thing?

To be consistent, seems if you are against the Momentum group and what they are pushing, you would have run screaming away from their candidate picks in the other races too? Am I the only one that sees this? Anyone want to clarify?

By the way, even the Oklahoman editorial writer(s) says Shadid is a good candidate (but they are still throwing their support/endorsement to Swinton) in Friday's Oklahoman.
I confess to eventually having similar thoughts crossing my mind, after the primary election.

During the primary, my focus was on what I then perceived to be a profound threat to Oklahoma City government, the WHBC/Tea Party guys and organization. I live in Ward 6 and the only mailers I'd seen during the primary were Ward 6 mailers. About one of those mailers, I even blogged, "What's Right About This Picture," that being the one which featured gay house member Al McAffrey, certainly not a conservative, and mayor Cornett, certainly not a liberal. The message was that in progressive government both liberals and conservatives could find common cause, that being the progress of the city. "Pretty cool ad," I thought to myself and out loud. During this period, I didn't understand much ... really, anything ... about the new super-PACs, e.g., reporting requirements, donor identification, money expenditures.

After the primary and I saw some of Momentum's ads in Ward 5 against Brian Walters in which he was quite unfairly chopped up by the hatchet technique, I actually found myself feeling sorry for Walters (even though I'm glad that Greenwell won).

But, whoa! Will the real Momentum please stand up? Is it the benign and progressive, all-inclusive organization that put out the Ward 6 ad that I mentioned above, or is it the ultra-conservative organization that likened Brian Walters to President Obama and made Walters out to be a liberal?

As I learned more about the non-regulation (at least in terms of disclosure) of super-PACs, and as I began to see Momentum's ads in the Ward 2 race in which Shadid was smeared with the ultra-liberal label about matters irrelevant to city government, a growing awareness of Momentum as a malevolent evil organization crept over me ... an organization without scruples or any ethical foundation whose donors escaped identification spending a ****load of money to elect a slate of city council members.

For what purpose? Did they raise and spend more than $400,000 just because they are good guys who are only concerned about good Oklahoma City government? But if they are good guys why would their campaign tactics be so downright nasty ... including the push-pull survey done in the Ward 2 runoff? Conclusion: A good chance exists that they aren't such good guys and that some other motive than mere good government was involved. Really truly good guys don't do such really truly bad things.

So, yes, the thoughts you raise did cross my mind. I don't know enough about Greenwell to know whether that should be a concern about him (i.e., being beholden to those who got him elected so as to affect his votes as a council member), but I can't see Salyer and/or Ryan as being in anyone's pocket. But, Swinton? About him, I have no such confidence.

And, lest we forget, this is but the maiden voyage of super-PACs in Oklahoma City politics. Only two years from now another 4 city council positions will be up for grabs.

One last remark, about the Oklahoman's editorial you mentioned. Not only did it call both parties "good candidates," it correctly noted that Shadid (as well as, it thought, Swinton) is pro-MAPS, unlike Swinton's ads to the contrary. Certainly the tone of the Oklahoma's perspective is different than it was in the primary. That's a step or two, at least.

[B][COLOR="Red"]To be consistent, seems if you are against the Momentum group and what they are pushing, you would have run screaming away from their candidate picks in the other races too? Am I the only one that sees this? Anyone want to clarify?

In Ward 6, we had the choice between Meg Salyer, who the Chamber supports, a 21-year-old kid (no offense intended, but Ms. Holstein has a lot of learning to do before she can run an effective campaign, let alone hold public office in a major city) and one of the religious loonies. Not a tough choice.

In Ward 8, we had Patrick Ryan, again the Chamber guy, and another religious lunatic. Easy choice.

In Ward 5, there were plenty of reasons to vote against Walters, and naturally, Greenwell had Chamber support.

In nearly every other case, it would be easy to select the Chamber's guy or gal because their opponents were either religious loons, extremely inexperienced folks getting their advice from Steve Hunt, or because they were like Walters--extreme and incendiary. I'm quite confident that even without Momentum's involvement, it's likely that all of those races, excepting perhaps Ward 5 would have turned out exactly the same.

Shadid takes off the gloves. Here is the latest mailer ... I don't know whether it's been sent or not. Click on a card for a larger view.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsas.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsa.jpg)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsbs.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_ethicsb.jpg)

??? I forgot all about this.

I mean, really, we wouldn't have broken into the Watergate if they hadn't signed-off on the deal at the White House. Or some such thing.

So, Swinton thought it was normal business practice to buy an elected official a $4,000 item for his office? Just as long as "Central Services signed-off on it." ?????

I agree, Midtowner, that's exactly what it sounds like.


The real question is, why would any state office need a $4,000 ice machine? I mean, did they have a wet bar or something?

The real question is, why would any state office need a $4,000 ice machine? I mean, did they have a wet bar or something?
I beg to differ. The REAL question is, WHY did Swinton carry the water to his bank, which then went through its internal processing and pop out a "Sure, no problem," answer to the ice machine ... all without a twang of concern about the propriety of doing so? As for the necessity of the ice machine, heck, shouldn't every state office need an ice machine for a wet bar?

That is actually concerning that they NEED a wetbar in state office buildings. I had always assumed that area of Lincoln Blvd was just lined with open bars...

I don't know about those ethics mailers, guys. I don't think the voters are going to react in the same way you are to them. That is, I think they are going to be turned off by them. You guys may think it's devastating, but those kind of allegations, especially at the last minute, have a VERY HIGH probability of backfiring.

A similar mail piece was sent out in the Norman mayoral race a couple years ago. It was tested among a very small group of people who thought it would destroy the candidate at which it was aimed. When it went city-wide, it backfired big time.

People despised the fact that such a negative attack with little evidence was circulated at the last minute, not allowing the candidate time to respond.

So, we'll see. Maybe it will work. But be very cautious because there's a good chance that piece turned off a lot of undecided or leaning voters for Shadid.

Ed Shadid putting out a single flier based on actual facts seems like an appropriate reaction for someone being persecuted by a character assasination campaign.

Not that your wrong about people potentially being turned off by negativity, but hopefully people will base their choice on merit and published goals/objectives, rather than "feelings." Granted, what you think has truth to it, but after weeks of mischaraterizations by a 3rd party, ideally run-off voters are smart enough to piece together what has actually happened over the past few weeks.

At least Shadid's mailer was based on publicly reported facts. Also, the facts are disturbing and go to the heart of Shadid's brilliant campaign strategy. Namely, with Swinton you have known facts that lead one to believe that if he is not in fact outright sleazy, he is at least representative of a type of backroom governing we need to move beyond as a city.

Conversely, Swinton just straight up lies about Shadid. I disagree with the point that this will backfire. I think it provides more heft to Shadid's argument.

Finally, Shadid is the only candidate in the race who has actually publicly enumerated what he will do for his ward. Swinton's "jobs" message is about as vague as possible.

Ed Shadid putting out a single flier based on actual facts seems like an appropriate reaction for someone being persecuted by a character assasination campaign.

Not that your wrong about people potentially being turned off by negativity, but hopefully people will base their choice on merit and published goals/objectives, rather than "feelings." Granted, what you think has truth to it, but after weeks of mischaraterizations by a 3rd party, ideally run-off voters are smart enough to piece together what has actually happened over the past few weeks.

I'm not excusing Swinton and Momentum for their attacks. I think those also turned off voters and helped Shadid. But I also think one of Shadid's biggest strengths was not engaging in these types of negative attacks. Indeed, you can see that from many of the comments made in this thread. Now that strength is either gone or greatly diminished, whether what he is saying is true, factual, or not.

Voters aren't going to think, "Oh, this is justified because of the character assassination by Swinton." They're simply going to think, "This race has become ridiculous and I don't want to hear any more about it. In fact, I may stay home on Tuesday."

You must think about this in terms of an undecided or "weak" leaning voter who doesn't follow this as closely as we do. I think Shadid's mailer will probably do three things: 1) Strengthen support among those who already strongly support him, 2) Turn off many undecided voters, many of whom will now stay home on Tuesday, and 3) turn some people to Swinton.

The trick is determining the magnitude of each component. In the end, I think it hurts Shadid. But given the fact that Swinton and supporters have engaged in negative attacks as well, I'm not sure how greatly it hurts.

At least Shadid's mailer was based on publicly reported facts. Also, the facts are disturbing and go to the heart of Shadid's brilliant campaign strategy. Namely, with Swinton you have known facts that lead one to believe that if he is not in fact outright sleazy, he is at least representative of a type of backroom governing we need to move beyond as a city.

Conversely, Swinton just straight up lies about Shadid. I disagree with the point that this will backfire. I think it provides more heft to Shadid's argument.

Finally, Shadid is the only candidate in the race who has actually publicly enumerated what he will do for his ward. Swinton's "jobs" message is about as vague as possible.

This is actually exactly what Shadid needs to hope for. That is, he needs to hope that his portrayal of Swinton as a "sleazy lobbyist" and backroom dealer has really hit the voter. If it has, then this mail piece will help reinforce that message.

I'm just not sure that message has set in, especially with the person who will vote on Tuesday, but also doesn't pay close attention to the race. I would love to see the polling on this race.

Thanks for the responses to my question. It was seeming like some of the same folks that were automatically voting against someone in the other races just because they were tea party or fire union backed sent them immediately into the other camp, decidedly chose a different approach when it came to a similar issue and Momentum. Please don't take any of this as an attack on your views or candidates you have/are supporting. Really just a curiousity on my part and how people come to their decision I guess.


Larry, I would take "beholden to special Chamber interests" any day of the week over the Brian Walters Show. Also, consider the long history of Meg Salyer and Pat Ryan on the council. Those guys are veterans of the council. Especially Meg, is not about to be a pawn for some bigger interests. Furthermore, they won their election by a landslide, nearly 80-20 in one case I believe. That gives them political capital to do whatever they want. I'm also not sure Pat Ryan is going to go for another term after this one, he's been on for so long..I'd expect him to retire the next time his seat comes up.

Long history? Salyer was elected to the Council in 2008 (don't think she has served a full term, didn't she replace another woman on the Council, who resigned to avoid conflict of interest when her son graduated the Fire Academy and was hired by the City...sorry I can't recall her name right now). That isn't to say she doesn't have government/community experience, just that she was a newbie when it comes to the Council. Why do you think "Especially Meg" won't be a pawn? I don't know enough about her but what I have seen, seems she is in Cornett's pocket.

Ryan has been there longer but not by that much. He became a Councilman in 2005, so 6 years now?


I'll admit to laughing at those mailers when Brian Walters was the target. That makes me guilty. I also didn't mind them going after the Tea Party folks, because their presence on the council could have been devastating to the city. So, you could say I'm being hypocritical, and you may be right, but what really hacks me off is their double barreled assault on Shadid is out of bounds, because the guy is going to be a great council member for his ward and an outstanding neighborhood advocate, like his predecessor.

LOL. Ok then, it is fine if they do it against a candidate you are against, but it is "out of bounds" on one you support. I appreciate the honesty. Again, not a criticism.


I confess to eventually having similar thoughts crossing my mind, after the primary election.

...a growing awareness of Momentum as a malevolent evil organization crept over me ... an organization without scruples or any ethical foundation whose donors escaped identification spending a ****load of money to elect a slate of city council members.

For what purpose? Did they raise and spend more than $400,000 just because they are good guys who are only concerned about good Oklahoma City government? But if they are good guys why would their campaign tactics be so downright nasty ... including the push-pull survey done in the Ward 2 runoff? Conclusion: A good chance exists that they aren't such good guys and that some other motive than mere good government was involved. Really truly good guys don't do such really truly bad things.

So, yes, the thoughts you raise did cross my mind. I don't know enough about Greenwell to know whether that should be a concern about him (i.e., being beholden to those who got him elected so as to affect his votes as a council member), but I can't see Salyer and/or Ryan as being in anyone's pocket. But, Swinton? About him, I have no such confidence.

And, lest we forget, this is but the maiden voyage of super-PACs in Oklahoma City politics. Only two years from now another 4 city council positions will be up for grabs.

One last remark, about the Oklahoman's editorial you mentioned. Not only did it call both parties "good candidates," it correctly noted that Shadid (as well as, it thought, Swinton) is pro-MAPS, unlike Swinton's ads to the contrary. Certainly the tone of the Oklahoma's perspective is different than it was in the primary. That's a step or two, at least.

Again. Thank you for your response. Your position evolved as the story developed. Fair enough. Why don't you have any concern's over Salyer now, knowing more about Momentum?


Just as I found it ammusing that some Council persons were indignant when it came to the promises made during the MAPS 3 campaign and the Use Tax question. Why were they silent about it during the campaign? To claim afterwards, the Council never took a vote on it, seems weak. While technically true, the City Manger said he went to each Council person and got at least the majority support before ever presenting it to the union. Makes since to have Council support/backing otherwise his negotiations are an exercise in futility if the Council is going to vote it down.

I wasn't all that surprised by the whole Momentum thing and the way they went after people. They did the same sort of things during the MAPS 3 campaign (especially with their MAPS Facts website that was filled with many instances of spin, half-truths and in some cases, out right lies. But that wasn't isolated to just that site. It crept into other aspects of the campaign as well.

I was supportive of most, if not all of the announced projects in MAPS 3 but had to vote against it because of the vagueness of the Ballot/Ordinance language (and quite possibly illegal/unconstitutional). Add to that the negative tactics the Chamber used in getting it to pass. Going back to the Use Tax promise, at least one Council person suggested the Chamber pay for the positions since they made the promise. Their response? Sorry, not our job...it was our job to get the measure to pass. Apparently with no regard to some of the same "ethics" issues mentioned in Shadid's mailer. That taint spreads to the Mayor (he was the figurehead of the Campaign, forget his exact title) and even the former Mayors that were co-treasurers of the Campaign.

As other have mentioned here, that negative campaigning turns people off. But it seems to be used again and again on local, state and national levels. So someone, somewhere thinks it works and is effective for their cause. But is it "negative" to point out the reported facts or a candidates voting record, or past affiliations? Voters often have a short memory (some here have acknowledged it themselves) so I don't think it is completely out of line to bring up the Fisher connection. I do agree however that many of the affiliations raised in this race have little to no bearing on matters that come before the Council.

I am voting for Shadid.

Again. Thank you for your response. Your position evolved as the story developed. Fair enough. Why don't you have any concern's over Salyer now, knowing more about Momentum?
Universal harmonics.

But, seriously, it's basically just a gut feeling.

Interesting post.

Doug, understand the gut feeling thing as I am that way when it comes to another matter.

Doug, understand the gut feeling thing as I am that way when it comes to another matter.

Which matter makes your gut go off, just out of curiosity?

I'm curious about that, too, Larry! Just one thing?

Here are Dr. Shadid's last 2 mailers ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_neighborhoodsa.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_neighborhoodsb.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_doctora.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/shadid_doctorb.jpg

I've seen both candidates in TV commercials yesterday and today. I hope that Ward 2 will have a heavy turnout tomorrow!

I had the good fortune of volunteering to hit several doors for Dr. Shadid. The neighborhood I was given was allegedly one Swinton performed well in during the initial election. The results of my walk indicate to me that the undecided vote is breaking very strong for Shadid. This race is probably impossible to poll, but let's just say there's this aura of victory for Shadid that is quite palpable. My conversations with canvassers in other areas also indicate a strong and noticeable movement to Shadid. I've also heard numerous examples of people voting for Swinton the first go around who now are voting for Shadid -- primarily because they didn't know Shadid well, or they actually liked Swinton until his gutterball campaign made them turn against him. It gets down to this: whose voters are more excited and motivated to vote? On that count, the indications are clear that Shadid has the edge.

And I'll say one more time: this is the best-run campaign on the local level I've seen in years -- if ever. It helps that Ed is such a bright, likable guy, but his campaign and messaging have been razor sharp. On the other hand, Swinton has also helped Shadid by having no real message and losing control of whatever message he may have had to an outside group of mindless goons.

I also can personally attest to the fact that Shadid has dozens and dozens of volunteers. Meanwhile, the Swinton campaign has had to resort to paying people to put out their door hangers, if that gives you any indication of enthusiasm.

A recent comercial stated that Dr. Shadid has never voted in any City or School Elections, do we know for sure this is true, if so, this should be a serious consideration when casting your vote.

A recent comercial stated that Dr. Shadid has never voted in any City or School Elections, do we know for sure this is true, if so, this should be a serious consideration when casting your vote.

He admitted to this on the KTOK interview. But, he took ownership of his past record, didn't try to justify it, said it was a mistake and has moved on.

He admitted to this on the KTOK interview. But, he took ownership of his past record, didn't try to justify it, said it was a mistake and has moved on.

Not an attempt at justification per se, but he did say in that interview that he felt disenfranchised as a voter.

Swinton's voting record is better but has gaps (some of the same elections Shadid didn't vote in). Thought it add that apparently Swinton has Cornett's endorsement yet according to the voting records, Swinton hasn't voted in the last to mayoral elections!

Doug, will answer via PM (previously answered Soonerguru by PM)

Midtowner, your right, most likely would have won anyway. But now, they are beholden to the chamber. Nobody spends that kind of money without something in return. And yes we spent money. We wanted our candidates to win and to pay attention to public safety. What do you suppose the momentum committee wants?

Man, the blogrolls are churning for Ed! I've never seen anything like this before. I hope it's enough to deliver the votes he needs to get over the top! He's getting support from blogs across the spectrum. Facebook is also burning up for Ed. Will this deliver votes? There are a lot of people out there pretty freaked out about Momentum. The Chamber will have some damage control to do after this.

CORRECTED POST (fixing the typos)


Swinton's voting record is better but has gaps (some of the same elections Shadid didn't vote in). Thought it odd that apparently Swinton has Cornett's endorsement yet according to the voting records, Swinton hasn't voted in the last two mayoral elections!

Doug, will answer via PM (previously answered Soonerguru by PM)

Midtowner, your right, most likely would have won anyway. But now, they are beholden to the chamber. Nobody spends that kind of money without something in return. And yes we spent money. We wanted our candidates to win and to pay attention to public safety. What do you suppose the momentum committee wants?
They want progressive, forward thinking people, people that don't try to hold this Great City hostage just because they feel short changed.

[/B]
They want progressive, forward thinking people, people that don't try to hold this Great City hostage just because they feel short changed.

That's a little histrionic, don't you think? And not very defensible. Who is trying to hold whom hostage over what? And who feels short-changed? I don't think either candidate has ever been short-changed in their very comfortable lives. From what I can see, both of their platforms are positive. Neither one has any plans to do anything I as a citizen of the city am concerned about. And even if they did, there's only one of them in a council of nine. Brian Walters, for all that I never heard him say anything I considered reasonable (and granted, I'm sure he has, I just don't attend or watch every city council meeting), had no significant impact on the council because there was only one of him. My concern, with the first election, was more that we would end up with three Brian Walters than that we would have just one. One doesn't really worry me. So, I'm having trouble seeing how the outcome of this election is going to keep the city from moving forward, no matter which of the two is elected.

I would prefer to see Shadid win. I think he's got some new ideas that could be good for the city to hear. I'm not even sure how many of them would be implemented, but I like the idea of them being proposed. But I don't really see anything negative happening regardless of who wins.

Betts, junkie is referring to the Firefighters. He was in charge of cutting the grass. So he knows what's best for every aspect of the city. Although I can say I have never been very impressed with the parks department. You know they do the best with what they have!

That's a little histrionic, don't you think? And not very defensible. Who is trying to hold whom hostage over what? And who feels short-changed? I don't think either candidate has ever been short-changed in their very comfortable lives. From what I can see, both of their platforms are positive. Neither one has any plans to do anything I as a citizen of the city am concerned about. And even if they did, there's only one of them in a council of nine. Brian Walters, for all that I never heard him say anything I considered reasonable (and granted, I'm sure he has, I just don't attend or watch every city council meeting), had no significant impact on the council because there was only one of him. My concern, with the first election, was more that we would end up with three Brian Walters than that we would have just one. One doesn't really worry me. So, I'm having trouble seeing how the outcome of this election is going to keep the city from moving forward, no matter which of the two is elected.

I would prefer to see Shadid win. I think he's got some new ideas that could be good for the city to hear. I'm not even sure how many of them would be implemented, but I like the idea of them being proposed. But I don't really see anything negative happening regardless of who wins.

I think it has more to do with strongly wanting to take advantage of the opportunity that Shadid represents for OKC right now. It is exciting to potentially have a council member who will be an outspoken advocate for CRAZY things like sustainability, walkability, neighborhoods, livability, quality of life, improving health with more than a phony website campaign, etc.

And by the way, as somebody who's attended dozens of city council meetings, no--Brian Walters never said anything reasonable. In fact, whenever anything downtown-related was on the agenda, he often laid his head down right on the desk (diess? sp?).

Betts, junkie is referring to the Firefighters. He was in charge of cutting the grass. So he knows what's best for every aspect of the city. Although I can say I have never been very impressed with the parks department. You know they do the best with what they have!

Man, struck a nerve with that guilty conscience!!

http://newsok.com/politics/elections/results/?race_id=18&popup=1&no_edit=1&no_cache=1 (updates every five minutes with auto-refresh)

Oklahoma City council ward 2 - Oklahoma

Ed Shadid 210 59.83%
Charlie Swinton 141 40.17%
@7:41pm with 2 of 39 precincts reporting

Ed Shadid 2,308 65.91%
Charlie Swinton 1,194 34.09%

23 of 39 precincts reporting

This one looks over - Shadid with an almost 32 percentage point lead.