you're confusing the half baked not ready for prime time MAPSIII with a quite popular franchise.
Did you notice OKC taking a page out of the national voter suppression playbook and limiting early voting opportunities, no more Saturday voting limiting the avaiabilty of working stiffs to the polls. I wouldn't worry Mayor Mick fans. If you compare facebook likes Mick will win by about 5000 votes, and is there a better barometer than social media, unless there are tea partiers and fiscal conservatives who secretly plan on voting for Shadid but don't want to publically like a guy who may have smoked crack with a gay prostitute. Interesting race. has any polling been done. I honestly know equal numbers of supporters on both sides. what's the gut feeling? Impossible to know?

OKC has no say in when and where early voting is allowed.

OKC has no say in when and where early voting is allowed.

Who makes that call? It's new this year.

Who makes that call? It's new this year.

State law and County Election Board rules. Oklahoma State Election Board - Early Voting (http://www.ok.gov/elections/Early_Voting.html) Early voting on Saturdays is only for State and/or Federal elections.

When is the last day to register?

All the MAPS Committees were selected from people who volunteered, as far as I know.

As far as Ed not being white: If you're Lebanese, rich, male and Christian, a surgeon, went to Casady and Northwestern, you're white in Oklahoma City.

When is the last day to register?

Friday.

Low information voters. It's almost sad that you can vote no matter how well you understand the subject or how well you know the candidates.

Low information voters. It's almost sad that you can vote no matter how well you understand the subject or how well you know the candidates.

I have faith that the majority of voters in Oklahoma City are intelligent enough to see past the rhetoric and understand how valuable our previous momentum has been and where it came from and how it was sustained. And I have faith that they will continue to fuel that momentum with the correct choice in the ballot box next month.

Low information voters. It's almost sad that you can vote no matter how well you understand the subject or how well you know the candidates.

Low info voters if what Mick and the Chamber boys ensured in the MAPSIII vote. They know better than any the economic realities of the convention trade. btw, do you think it's selfish to still want the project full well knowing what it'll do to city finances? Ed is just putting all the inconvient facts on the table so people can cast an informed vote. It's representative governanace.

I have faith that the majority of voters in Oklahoma City are intelligent enough to see past the rhetoric and understand how valuable our previous momentum has been and where it came from and how it was sustained. And I have faith that they will continue to fuel that momentum with the correct choice in the ballot box next month.

momentum, seesm more like the ancestors of the Pei tragedy are driving the crazy train to a repeat of history.

momentum, seesm more like the ancestors of the Pei tragedy are driving the crazy train to a repeat of history.

That's absurd. Where are the examples of demolitions without an immediate purpose? We've seen growth and new development at every turn. That's just really ridiculous.

Who makes that call? It's new this year.

And you call us uninformed? Please remove your tinfoil hat and stow it in the overhead compartment.

Serious question: Are you ever going to tell us what Ed actually stands for, plans to do, supports, what his vision is for this city, or do you just copy and paste from a lengthy list of anti-Mick talking points that at this point in time sound like a worn out record.

That's absurd. Where are the examples of demolitions without an immediate purpose? We've seen growth and new development at every turn. That's just really ridiculous.

They're similar in being gradiose visions that ignore reality.

And you call us uninformed? Please remove your tinfoil hat and stow it in the overhead compartment.

Serious question: Are you ever going to tell us what Ed actually stands for, plans to do, supports, what his vision is for this city, or do you just copy and paste from a lengthy list of anti-Mick talking points that at this point in time sound like a worn out record.

Isn't it obvious with all the conversations his candidacy has ignited. Sensible transparant governanace being one.

Link just died.

Fixed.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/1546413_522827864497927_1208484691_n_zpsc9a80f0e.j pg

I like the way he clings to a honored title but never calls Mayor Cornett by his title. He also ignores his complicity in approving "Mick's appointments"

Low info voters if what Mick and the Chamber boys ensured in the MAPSIII vote. They know better than any the economic realities of the convention trade. btw, do you think it's selfish to still want the project full well knowing what it'll do to city finances? Ed is just putting all the inconvient facts on the table so people can cast an informed vote. It's representative governanace.

Yeah man, all those young college educated professionals and business owners who follow the chamber are really "low info."

Fixed.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/1546413_522827864497927_1208484691_n_zpsc9a80f0e.j pg

They're all male! I think the good Dr. Shadid sees women as invisible. Which is what I've heard....

Thank you Sid. It's sad that the voice of reason seems to be overwhelmed by the desire to believe something is true even when it's not. That's characterized much of Ed's campaign. It's full of misinformation (and lies) that the willing lap up because they want to, not because they're true.

been some progress recently, but all you have to do is look at local media to know OKC is a good ole boys town and has diversity issues in representation.

Sounds like any progress that has been made is "no thanks" to Ed. David Glover was his only recommendation for an appointment? A white male whom I think went to Casady. Yup.

Sounds like any progress that has been made is "no thanks" to Ed. David Glover was his only recommendation for an appointment? A white male whom I think went to Casady. Yup.

How often in politics have we seen a candidate point to the smelly trash in his opponent's yard, yet ignore the rotting pigs in his own?

Sad thing is that this is entirely a manufactured Ed issue.
-

been some progress recently, but all you have to do is look at local media to know OKC is a good ole boys town and has diversity issues in representation.

Then why has Shadid persistently affirmatively voted for that lack of diversity over the last three years. Why hasn't he bothered to do anything about it?

I always thought this was one of the more ironic examples of Shadid's tendency to appoint old white men to City committees:

July 3, 2012 - Journal of Council Proceedings
III C.
Appointment of Bob Nelon to MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board.

CONFIRMED. MOVED BY RYAN, SECONDED BY SALYER. AYES: MAYOR CORNETT, MARRS, SHADID, WHITE, GREENWELL, SALYER, KELLY, AND RYAN.

Low info voters if what Mick and the Chamber boys ensured in the MAPSIII vote. They know better than any the economic realities of the convention trade. btw, do you think it's selfish to still want the project full well knowing what it'll do to city finances? Ed is just putting all the inconvient facts on the table so people can cast an informed vote. It's representative governanace.

What it'll do? You mean that we're paying for a CC upfront with no debt? Crazy what we're doing!

I now see he wants to cut zoo funding in HALF for buses.

He is proposing this AGAIN!? Where was this brought up?

I thought he had figured out going after one of the most popular things that the public voted for was a bad idea.
Please elaborate.

My response to the race-baiting: https://www.facebook.com/sidburgess/posts/526184180832018

The arrogance and hypocrisy of Shadid on that thread is breathtaking.

Maybe we do need more diversity. If only Ed had been in a position to do something about that the last couple of years.

Another interesting thing for me. How come in all of Ed's campaign materials I've received I've yet to see anything that states one thing Mr. Shadid has accomplished as a city council person. You would think he would have one accomplishment he could brag about.

Maybe we do need more diversity. If only Ed had been in a position to do something about that the last couple of years.

Another interesting thing for me. How come in all of Ed's campaign materials I've received I've yet to see anything that states one thing Mr. Shadid has accomplished as a city council person. You would think he would have one accomplishment he could brag about.

His campaign has led negative from day one. Had he hired (or found volunteers) that approached campaigning from a different angle, we might see a more positive campaign.

It is stunning, absolutely stunning, how little these guys know.

Because he's just trolling with any BS he can come up with....just another diversion tactic.

you're confusing the half baked not ready for prime time MAPSIII with a quite popular franchise.
Did you notice OKC taking a page out of the national voter suppression playbook and limiting early voting opportunities, no more Saturday voting limiting the avaiabilty of working stiffs to the polls. I wouldn't worry Mayor Mick fans. If you compare facebook likes Mick will win by about 5000 votes, and is there a better barometer than social media, unless there are tea partiers and fiscal conservatives who secretly plan on voting for Shadid but don't want to publically like a guy who may have smoked crack with a gay prostitute. Interesting race. has any polling been done. I honestly know equal numbers of supporters on both sides. what's the gut feeling? Impossible to know?

Steve H....I mean Edgar, tell me you're smarter than this.... the city has nothing to do with this.

Maybe we do need more diversity. If only Ed had been in a position to do something about that the last couple of years.

Another interesting thing for me. How come in all of Ed's campaign materials I've received I've yet to see anything that states one thing Mr. Shadid has accomplished as a city council person. You would think he would have one accomplishment he could brag about.

He's afraid to mention the LGTB anti-discrimination policy he worked to pass, because he doesn't want to turn off conservative voters. I believe that is his sole accomplishment. The "Stop the Boulevard" work was not his idea, but rather was led by Bob Kemper. He jumped on the bandwagon. His urban chicken proposal was not well thought out enough to pass and so it was modified by others who are perhaps a bit savvier. He failed in his attempt to stop the streetcar. That pretty much sums it up I think.

Crap, I didn't realize you had to register 24 days prior to a city election to vote. I've been out of town for two weeks and haven't transferred my registration from Norman back to OKC yet...that's frustrating.

So does anyone else think that the addition of Phil Hughes and Joe Sarge to the ballot will hurt Shadid more than Cornett?

I'm cautiously thinking that. At the very least it should spread the "not Cornett" and "not the incumbent" votes around a little.

I think the combined affect of Hughes and Sarge will be about 50 votes shifting away from Shadid or Cornett - maybe.

Citing challengers' tone, mayor rejects debates | News OK (http://newsok.com/citing-challengers-tone-mayor-rejects-debates/article/3932317)
What? no push polls asking about Shadid's gay agenda for OKC. I got a fifty that says otherwise.

I'm pretty thrilled that Mayor is not going to waste his time with somebody like Ed. Basically giving him any time at all simply elevates Ed's gaseous rhetoric. After he has demonstrated to the people who worked so hard to help him get elected in his Ward 2 campaign his willingness to stab them in their back (not to mention the general voting public) and outright lie about his positions, why should we believe anything that he might say or pledge in a debate?

A debate in my mind is absolutely meaningless with somebody like Ed.

Exactly. Why treat a troll as a serious challenger? I have a feeling this election may make the Taco Bell guy look like a professional politician.

I am all for Mick! However, in the interest of civics 101, I don't see how a debate could hurt. This is a political consultant's decision. Candidates debate challengers with a negative tone all the time. Whether we like it or not, Ed has a competing vision and is a sitting member of the City Council. It's not like debating a "nobody" (as much as many of us think Shadid is just that). A little disappointed in the lack of confidence and the political calculations, there's no reason he shouldn't debate Shadid. Ed's been lying, what a great time to defend your positions! Everyone (and I understand) will look at this as "why should he?" from a political perspective. From a good government perspective, this shows poor leadership, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, and just a mistake for civic involvement by not allowing the voters to sum up the candidates side-by-side. Eye to eye. Man to man. Incumbents crawling under a rock and running away to avoid opponents, and only relying on 30-second ads is anathema to me. Mick's done a great job, but to me, this decision alone shows he's very far from perfect. Weak, weak, weak decision.

Please, no flames. I can't stand Ed Shadid. But, he's a sitting member of the council, a legitimate candidate on the ballot with an opposing vision for the city. Mick shouldn't use the old incumbent mindset of "I'll just hunker down and ride my way into re-election." A good, strong mayor should have no difficulty defending his record and putting Ed Shadid to bed. Honestly, this decision disappoints me.

Ed gets to debate Mick every Tuesday if he wants and its on television- public comments included.

Ed gets to debate Mick every Tuesday if he wants and its on television- public comments included.

I understand. However, turn this around and it was Shadid that was hiding from debates, we would all be livid. What happens on the shoe is not a replacement for a campaign debate on the issues. I love Mick, I just think this is typical incumbent politics and serves nobody but Mayor Mick not wanting anything to spoil the coronation. I believe in good government. We would benefit from these two candidates facing each other man to man. It's a political campaign and incumbents that want to avoid any "potential mindfields" are only thinking of old-style, insider campaigns where money, connections, and name recognition is key. This city deserves better. No, it doesn't deserve Ed Shadid, but he's on the ballot and we should have the opportunity to size these men up side-by-side. Many municipalities and states are codifying standard models of debates so candidates cannot run away. They make it part of the process whether they want to or not.

I am all for Mick! However, in the interest of civics 101, I don't see how a debate could hurt. This is a political consultant's decision. Candidates debate challengers with a negative tone all the time. Whether we like it or not, Ed has a competing vision and is a sitting member of the City Council. It's not like debating a "nobody" (as much as many of us think Shadid is just that). A little disappointed in the lack of confidence and the political calculations, there's no reason he shouldn't debate Shadid. Ed's been lying, what a great time to defend your positions! Everyone (and I understand) will look at this as "why should he?" from a political perspective. From a good government perspective, this shows poor leadership, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, and just a mistake for civic involvement by not allowing the voters to sum up the candidates side-by-side. Eye to eye. Man to man. Incumbents crawling under a rock and running away to avoid opponents, and only relying on 30-second ads is anathema to me. Mick's done a great job, but to me, this decision alone shows he's very far from perfect. Weak, weak, weak decision.

Please, no flames. I can't stand Ed Shadid. But, he's a sitting member of the council, a legitimate candidate on the ballot with an opposing vision for the city. Mick shouldn't use the old incumbent mindset of "I'll just hunker down and ride my way into re-election." A good, strong mayor should have no difficulty defending his record and putting Ed Shadid to bed. Honestly, this decision disappoints me.

Why debate a liar? How can you win when he says things that aren't true but take too long to prove incorrect? We're a sound-bite public. If you can't get it done in a minute or two, you've lost your audience.

The most interesting thing about a debate would be to see precisely what Ed's vision is. But, I suspect he would basically talk around the subject regardless. It would also be interesting to see who he decided was his best chance for election. Suck up to the ultraconservatives with an anti-tax, pro-police message or go the opposite direction and talk about massive expenditures for transit, education, assistance for the mentally ill? Or go with the pro-neighborhood, anti-downtown message? Decisions, decision. Listening to Ed is like trying to capture the willow-the-wisp. It takes him a long time to get to whatever his point is, although he does it in a very soft, thoughtful voice, and by the time he's gotten there you've forgotten where he started. Go back and watch a few of the City Council meetings where he goes off and you'll get an idea.

I am all for Mick! However, in the interest of civics 101, I don't see how a debate could hurt. This is a political consultant's decision. Candidates debate challengers with a negative tone all the time. Whether we like it or not, Ed has a competing vision and is a sitting member of the City Council. It's not like debating a "nobody" (as much as many of us think Shadid is just that). A little disappointed in the lack of confidence and the political calculations, there's no reason he shouldn't debate Shadid. Ed's been lying, what a great time to defend your positions! Everyone (and I understand) will look at this as "why should he?" from a political perspective. From a good government perspective, this shows poor leadership, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, and just a mistake for civic involvement by not allowing the voters to sum up the candidates side-by-side. Eye to eye. Man to man. Incumbents crawling under a rock and running away to avoid opponents, and only relying on 30-second ads is anathema to me. Mick's done a great job, but to me, this decision alone shows he's very far from perfect. Weak, weak, weak decision.

Please, no flames. I can't stand Ed Shadid. But, he's a sitting member of the council, a legitimate candidate on the ballot with an opposing vision for the city. Mick shouldn't use the old incumbent mindset of "I'll just hunker down and ride my way into re-election." A good, strong mayor should have no difficulty defending his record and putting Ed Shadid to bed. Honestly, this decision disappoints me.

I agree with and understand your spirit. But don't overthink this. Ed refuses to publicly state his positions. He refuses to even say how he will vote on important city issues -- such as his months-long stonewalling on his streetcar position. Basically, he's completely full of hot air. So why bother having a debate? Can't the guy just tell the voters what he plans to do? Is that too much to ask?

We know what the Mayor is going to do. He's not the one who has anything to prove.

I agree a debate would be in order if one of the candidates wasn't such a duplicitous liar.

Ironically, I think Cornett would destroy Ed in a debate. Ed is so discombobulated in his positions (if he ever even takes them). The mayor is very studied in his positions. He knows why the hell he's doing something.

Ed is just trying to create a campaign issue, but that is no substitute for a plan.

Just for fun, though, what questions would we like to see in a debate? Nothing at all general or vague for me. I would kill to get the real answers to these questions. Well, maybe not but a little truth serum would be vastly entertaining.

The problem with a debate is that I want to ask them different questions. And I want real, concrete answers, not the vague generalities that are usually given in debates.

For Ed:

1. Why did you really not vote in any city elections before your City Council Elections, and don't give me that crap about feeling marginalized.
2. Why did you tell the voters in your ward that you would make sure MAPS was completed as promised and then do the opposite?
3. Do you care if we have a MAPS 4?
4. What are your precise plans for policemen and firemen, what will it cost and how do you plan to pay for it?
5. What are your precise plans for a bus system and bus shelters, what will they cost, and how do you plan to pay for it?
6. What is your vision for the direction Oklahoma City will be going by 2018?
7. Do you care if momentum downtown stops as a result of your actions to stop MAPS?
8. Have you ever been to a meeting at the Cox Convention Center? If the answer is yes, do you think it functions adequately now as our only central meeting place for the city and do you think it will continue to function well for the next 20-30 years?
9. What would you do if the Thunder ownership told you they need a new arena and they want it to be included in MAPS 4? (I don't think that's going to happen, but I'd love to hear his answer).


That would be enough for me, if I could get a straight and honest answer.

For Mick:
1. Are you thinking about a MAPS 4? If yes, what projects do you see as part of it?
2. What would you do if the Thunder ownership told you they need a new arena and they want it to be included in MAPS 4? (fair is fair - both get to answer this one)
3. What do you think the city could do to help struggling neighborhoods?
4. Do you think we should add additional city councilmen or women to give our Hispanic population a greater voice and how would you accomplish that?
5. What do you think about a regional transit district?
6. Would you be willing to support a permanent sales tax funding source for regional transit?
7. Have you considered reorganizing EMSA and the fire department's response to 911 calls to improve efficiency? Do we need more firemen or better organization of those we have?
8. Do you think we need more policemen? If so, what will it cost and can we afford them? If we need them, does the money have to come from someplace else and, if so, where?
9. Are you really a lackey of the Chamber junta and the plutocrats (couldn't resist throwing that one in there!)????

I don't see much what a debate accomplishes either way. Whether you love or hate him Mayor Cornett has a pretty extensive track record. If Mayor Cornett is re elected we know exactly what we are going to get.

Good questions. I'd add one more for Mick.

Mick, have you ever used illegal drugs?

But none of this matters. I'm sure Mick has done the polling to know it's his to lose and he might as well wait it out under the bed.

Okay, two. That one and one about how deep he's willing to go into tax payer pockets for a CC hotel if and when the time comes.

Okay, two. That one and one about how deep he's willing to go into tax payer pockets for a CC hotel if and when the time comes.

just like you paid for the Skirvin and the Renaissance?

just like you paid for the Skirvin and the Renaissance?

Is that his answer for the record? Cite?

i can't cite an informal talk i heard, but from his mouth, the land under the Skirvin is city owned, and what I think I heard from it was that public funds were used for portions of the Renaissance. doesn't bother me one bit though

If that's the level of depth on a CC hotel he would ask us to go and would support himself, I'd like to hear it from him, on the record.

Nothing was said about level of depth of support of a CC hotel. A question was asked, and he mentioned those past projects, and to paraphrase, proposals would be reviewed when we even get to that point, and if it's a good investment for the city they might do it, and if it's not then they won't. no type of committment at all (at least that i heard).

I'm sure his answer in this debate we aren't going to have would be evasive enough to not leave anything in the record he couldn't go back on later.

Fine with me to not have it. I won't need to watch that.

I'm sure his answer in this debate we aren't going to have would be evasive enough to not leave anything in the record he couldn't go back on later.

what any politician who's worth their weight would do, right? :)

that seems to be Ed's problem, saying stuff that continually contradicts prior comments

what any politician who's worth their weight would do, right? :)

that seems to be Ed's problem, saying stuff that continually contradicts prior comments

Without a doubt, Mick is more skilled in that department than Ed.

Regardless, that's precisely what's wrong with debates. The skill of the debater and their ability to waltz around the hard questions makes it pretty worthless as a way to analyze a candidate. What they say when campaigning is pretty worthless as well, as has been clearly demonstrated in this case. That's why I think observed behavior is the best thing you can use. I've been to multiple city council meetings and watched a lot more on video. I've heard their campaign messages. That's what I've used to make my decisions.

Mick is a great speaker. I just heard him speak last night. I do not believe he is "afraid" of debating Ed from that standpoint. He has a much more polished delivery style which would come across well. But talking to Ed is like trying to catch mercury (hope none of the rest of you get my reference...we did some stupid things as kids). He switches topic in the middle of a discussion, in non sequitur fashion. I can see him throwing out accusations that are not part of the question and then moving on, leaving Mick to either defend himself and not answer the question or answer the question and not defend himself, given the time constraints of a debate. Then there is his obvious willingness to lie if it suits his purpose. I wouldn't debate him either. Show us what you've accomplished Ed, tell us your precise plans without a debate.

I think conventional wisdom is that debates accomplish very little (or at least, nothing positive). Most skilled politicians carefully talk around the issues to spout their talking points anyway. Most in the audience (in person and electronically) walk away with the same mindset they walked in with. Not sure what the value of a debate is. I still want to see an interview in the news papers (preferably with the questions that betts posed above). Maybe I'm not doing my homework like I should, but I couldn't tell you what either are "for" (although any incumbent has an easy answer to that) and I'm increasingly having trouble knowing what the (main) challenger is against, except the incumbent.

Don't forget the chamber junta... :D

Without a doubt, Mick is more skilled in that department than Ed.

I agree. While Cornett is not my mayor, he does seem far more skilled than a certain councilman/candidate at not blatantly ignoring/forgetting/bypassing promises he already made to voters. I believe there are many voters in OKC who would consider this a sign of Cornett's true character. Of course they might also consider the challenger's apparent lack of skill, effort or even any apparent concern in the area as a sign of his character as well.

I realize many in the metro are citified folk, and perhaps have been their entire lives. As a small towner and country lane and field lover until adulthood, a strong popular mayor not debating a challenger with known character issues and an apparent penchant for saying X and doing Y makes a lot of sense to me.

Lay down with dawgs, ya get fleas.

No upside for this incumbent to do a debate with this challenger that I can see.